{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_000", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_001", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_002", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_003", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_004", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_005", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_006", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_007", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_008", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_009", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 301, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 301 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_010", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_011", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_012", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_013", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_014", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_015", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_016", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_017", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_018", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_019", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_020", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_021", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_022", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_023", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The response fixes the reported defect and produces the expected behavior.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not address the defect or is non-functional.", "1": "Shows relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Partially addresses the defect but leaves major problems.", "3": "Fixes the main defect with minor correctness issues.", "4": "Correctly fixes the defect with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely fixes the defect."}}, {"description": "The change addresses the underlying cause rather than merely masking symptoms.", "name": "Root Cause Resolution", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Does not identify or address the cause.", "1": "Targets an unrelated or implausible cause.", "2": "Addresses only a symptom or small part of the cause.", "3": "Mostly addresses the cause but leaves a relevant weakness.", "4": "Addresses the root cause convincingly.", "5": "Addresses the root cause completely and precisely."}}, {"description": "The fix preserves intended behavior outside the defect scope.", "name": "Behavior Preservation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Breaks essential existing behavior.", "1": "Introduces severe regressions.", "2": "Likely introduces material regressions.", "3": "Mostly preserves behavior with a minor regression risk.", "4": "Preserves intended behavior with negligible risk.", "5": "Preserves behavior and keeps the change tightly scoped."}}, {"description": "The solution follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The fix handles relevant edge cases and failure paths without unnecessary fragility.", "name": "Robustness and Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Fails under ordinary inputs or error conditions.", "1": "Handles only a narrow happy path.", "2": "Misses important edge cases or failure paths.", "3": "Handles common cases but misses a minor edge case.", "4": "Handles relevant edge cases and failures well.", "5": "Is robust across all reasonably implied cases."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_bug_024", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 305, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: bug_fix. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "bug_fix"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_000", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_001", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_002", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_003", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_004", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_005", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_006", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_007", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_008", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_009", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 282, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 282 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_010", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_011", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_012", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_013", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_014", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_015", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_016", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_017", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_018", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_019", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_020", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_021", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_022", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_023", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The completed code implements the behavior implied by the prompt and context.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "The completion is unrelated or non-functional.", "1": "Shows limited relevant intent but is substantially incorrect.", "2": "Implements only a flawed part of the required behavior.", "3": "Implements the main behavior with minor issues.", "4": "Correctly implements the behavior with negligible issues.", "5": "Fully and precisely implements the required behavior."}}, {"description": "The response fills all material gaps required for a usable solution.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Leaves the completion essentially empty.", "1": "Fills only a small fraction of the required code.", "2": "Leaves major required pieces unfinished.", "3": "Completes the main path but omits a minor element.", "4": "Completes all material requirements.", "5": "Completes all requirements without unnecessary additions."}}, {"description": "The completion fits the supplied types, APIs, control flow, and local code.", "name": "Context Compatibility", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Conflicts fundamentally with the supplied context.", "1": "Contains several severe context or API mismatches.", "2": "Requires substantial changes to fit the context.", "3": "Mostly fits with a minor mismatch.", "4": "Fits the supplied context cleanly.", "5": "Integrates seamlessly and preserves all constraints."}}, {"description": "The completion follows relevant API, lifecycle, null-safety, and state-management practices.", "name": "Flutter/Dart Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Violates fundamental Flutter or Dart requirements.", "1": "Contains several serious framework or language misuses.", "2": "Uses questionable patterns that reduce reliability.", "3": "Generally appropriate with minor best-practice issues.", "4": "Uses idiomatic and reliable Flutter/Dart patterns.", "5": "Uses exemplary, context-appropriate practices."}}, {"description": "The completion is clear, concise, maintainable, and appropriately scoped.", "name": "Code Quality", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Is unreadable or unusable.", "1": "Has severe clarity or maintainability problems.", "2": "Has substantial duplication, complexity, or naming problems.", "3": "Is understandable with minor quality issues.", "4": "Is clear, concise, and maintainable.", "5": "Is exceptionally clear, idiomatic, and well scoped."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_comp_024", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 285, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: completion. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 285 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "completion"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_000", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_001", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_002", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_003", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_004", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_005", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_006", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_007", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_008", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_009", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 237, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_010", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_011", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_012", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_013", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_014", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_015", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_016", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_017", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_018", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_019", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_020", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_021", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_022", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_023", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_exp_024", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 238, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 238 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_000", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_001", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_002", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_003", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_004", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_005", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_006", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_007", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_008", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_009", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 244, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 244 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_010", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_011", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_012", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_013", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_014", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_015", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_016", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_017", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_018", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_019", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_020", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_021", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_022", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_023", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "bench_synth_ref_024", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": null, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000044", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1138, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1138 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000048", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 411, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 411 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000051", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2203, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2203 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000071", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 623, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 623 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000083", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6318, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6318 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000084", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 300, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 300 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_000113", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4752, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 4752 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000140", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2525, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2525 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000155", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2586, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2586 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000162", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 271, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 271 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000171", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 552, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 552 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000173", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 433, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 433 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000177", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 501, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 501 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000178", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 449, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 449 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000179", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 458, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 458 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000181", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 448, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 448 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000182", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 435, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 435 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000183", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 448, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 448 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000185", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 255, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 255 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000187", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 526, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 526 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000192", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 708, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 708 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000194", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 256, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 256 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_000196", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 247, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000198", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 142, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 142 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000218", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 250, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 250 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000219", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 232, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 232 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000220", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 472, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 472 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000285", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4059, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4059 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000306", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4702, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4702 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000307", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 14377, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 14377 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000366", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 496, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 496 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000372", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2272, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2272 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000383", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9106, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9106 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000409", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 147, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 147 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000459", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 327, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 327 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000634", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 342, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 342 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000637", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 533, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 533 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000643", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 865, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 865 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000697", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4027, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4027 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000703", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2555, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2555 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000727", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 129, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 129 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000730", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1237, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1237 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000734", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1661, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1661 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000736", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1224, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1224 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000756", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1341, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1341 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000760", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 743, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 743 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_000761", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 411, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 411 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000763", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1385, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1385 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000779", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 22329, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 22329 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000781", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1286, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1286 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000783", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3327, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3327 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000803", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5598, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5598 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_000805", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 148, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 148 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000817", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 671, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 671 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_000818", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 412, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 412 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000827", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 11770, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 11770 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000838", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5903, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 5903 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_000860", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1080, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1080 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000878", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3434, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3434 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_000881", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 481, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 481 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000882", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 16260, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 16260 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000883", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1085, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1085 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000884", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3863, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3863 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000885", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2262, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2262 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000888", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7974, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 7974 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000890", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3479, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3479 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000897", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 853, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 853 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000924", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1073, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1073 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000925", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1151, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1151 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000936", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6249, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6249 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000945", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1550, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1550 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000947", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 332, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 332 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000957", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5565, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5565 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000965", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1153, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1153 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_000969", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3630, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3630 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_000970", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2878, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2878 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The refactored code preserves the original behavior while applying the requested improvements.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Refactored code is broken or changes behavior entirely.", "1": "Major behavior changes; original functionality is lost.", "2": "Partially correct; some original behaviors are broken or missing.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor behavior drift or edge-case regression.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; behavior is preserved under all tested conditions.", "5": "Perfectly correct; behavior is identical or improved without any regression."}}, {"description": "Proper null-safety migration, non-nullable types, and appropriate state-management pattern adoption.", "name": "Null Safety / State Management", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Null safety violated; nullable types used unsafely or old patterns retained.", "1": "Major null-safety issues; several unsafe accesses or missing null checks.", "2": "Partial null-safety; some non-nullable types applied but many gaps remain.", "3": "Mostly sound null-safety; a few unnecessary nullable types or late inits.", "4": "Good null-safety; only trivial improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent null-safety; all types are sound, no unnecessary nullables, state is clean."}}, {"description": "Use of modern Flutter patterns, widget extraction, const constructors, and efficient rebuild scoping.", "name": "Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No modern patterns applied; legacy code remains unchanged.", "1": "Minimal improvements; only trivial formatting changes.", "2": "Some improvements applied but many anti-patterns remain.", "3": "Reasonable improvements; a few missed opportunities for modern patterns.", "4": "Good improvements; most modern patterns applied, minor gaps remain.", "5": "Excellent refactoring; fully idiomatic, const-correct, scoped rebuilds, clean extraction."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability improvements post-refactor.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No style improvement; code remains unreadable.", "1": "Minimal formatting improvements; naming still poor.", "2": "Some style fixes but inconsistent or incomplete.", "3": "Acceptable style; readable but not yet polished.", "4": "Good style; clean, consistent, and easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, self-documenting, beautifully formatted."}}, {"description": "Refactoring reduces unnecessary rebuilds, avoids expensive operations in build, and uses efficient data structures.", "name": "Performance", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Performance degraded or no improvement; expensive operations remain in build.", "1": "Minimal performance improvement; same rebuild overhead.", "2": "Some improvements; a few expensive operations moved but not all.", "3": "Reasonable performance gains; most unnecessary rebuilds removed.", "4": "Good performance; only marginal further improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent performance; optimal rebuild scoping, no build-phase heavy work, efficient structures."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_001000", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1463, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: refactor. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1463 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "refactor"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_001021", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1463, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1463 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001048", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 986, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 986 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001102", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2614, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2614 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001113", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 428, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 428 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001135", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5512, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5512 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001147", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1824, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1824 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001153", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 239, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 239 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001164", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 789, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 789 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001166", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1672, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1672 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001197", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 731, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 731 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001204", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 520, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 520 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001208", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7670, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7670 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001213", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 17352, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 17352 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001217", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 13081, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 13081 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001221", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 20407, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 20407 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001223", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6111, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6111 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001225", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2734, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2734 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001234", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 655, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 655 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001256", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5915, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5915 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001264", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1172, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1172 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001274", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9121, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9121 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001279", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 976, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 976 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001280", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1340, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1340 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001283", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5897, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5897 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001284", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2579, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2579 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001287", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1883, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1883 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001289", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1263, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1263 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001303", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2264, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2264 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001304", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3306, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3306 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001307", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5857, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5857 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001309", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2109, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2109 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001310", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 683, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 683 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001311", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8503, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8503 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001316", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2288, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2288 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001331", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1473, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1473 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001346", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 12506, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 12506 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001352", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 11583, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 11583 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001364", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1709, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1709 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001377", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 882, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 882 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001380", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 17456, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 17456 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001381", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 718, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 718 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001392", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3783, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3783 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001418", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2006, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2006 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001455", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1828, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1828 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001493", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2972, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2972 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001495", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1475, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1475 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001512", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 843, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 843 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001515", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 29408, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 29408 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001525", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4003, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4003 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001537", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5817, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5817 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001544", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2776, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2776 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001560", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1189, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1189 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001564", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6429, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6429 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001565", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1163, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1163 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001575", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2952, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2952 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001588", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1389, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1389 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001591", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1513, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1513 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001598", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2392, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2392 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001605", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9814, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9814 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001614", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2699, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2699 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001621", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1465, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1465 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001629", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 505, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 505 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001642", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3496, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3496 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001652", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5646, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5646 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001658", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1080, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1080 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001660", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 48078, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 48078 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The explanation accurately describes what the code does, including widget behavior, state flow, and lifecycle.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Explanation is factually wrong about the code's behavior.", "1": "Major inaccuracies; misinterprets core logic or widget roles.", "2": "Partially correct but significant misconceptions about the code.", "3": "Mostly accurate; minor misinterpretations of edge cases or callbacks.", "4": "Accurate with very minor errors; correctly describes the main logic and widgets.", "5": "Fully correct; precise description of every widget, state, and callback behavior."}}, {"description": "All significant code sections, widgets, and logic paths are explained without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No explanation of the actual code; only generic Flutter commentary.", "1": "Minimal explanation; only the entry point or top-level widget is mentioned.", "2": "Partial explanation; several important widgets or logic blocks are skipped.", "3": "Most sections covered but one or two important details are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a trivial helper or minor callback is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every widget, method, and significant parameter is addressed."}}, {"description": "The explanation goes beyond surface-level description to discuss underlying mechanisms, Flutter framework internals, or design trade-offs.", "name": "Technical Depth", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Purely surface-level; no technical insight beyond naming widgets.", "1": "Very shallow; mentions widget names but not how they interact.", "2": "Some depth; explains basic interactions but misses framework internals.", "3": "Moderate depth; covers most interactions but not design trade-offs.", "4": "Good depth; explains framework behavior and some trade-offs.", "5": "Excellent depth; covers framework internals, rebuild logic, performance trade-offs, and alternatives."}}, {"description": "Explanation is organized logically, uses clear headings or step-by-step structure, and follows a natural reading order.", "name": "Structural Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unstructured; rambling or disorganized, hard to follow.", "1": "Poor structure; no clear flow, jumps between unrelated topics.", "2": "Some structure exists but is inconsistent or confusing in places.", "3": "Acceptable structure; mostly logical flow with minor organizational issues.", "4": "Good structure; clear sections, logical progression, easy to follow.", "5": "Excellent structure; perfectly organized, intuitive flow, headings and summaries where appropriate."}}, {"description": "The explanation includes concrete usage examples, edge-case notes, or modification suggestions that help the reader apply the knowledge.", "name": "Practical Examples", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No practical examples or usage guidance; purely descriptive.", "1": "Minimal examples; only trivial or unrealistic usage shown.", "2": "Some examples but not directly applicable to the code shown.", "3": "Basic examples relevant to the code; a few useful usage notes.", "4": "Good examples; practical usage, edge-case notes, and minor extension ideas.", "5": "Excellent examples; realistic scenarios, common pitfalls, and clear extension paths."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001665", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9809, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: code_to_explanation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9809 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "code_to_explanation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001668", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1643, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1643 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001678", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 971, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 971 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001679", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2710, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2710 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001680", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7027, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7027 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001685", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 13226, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 13226 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001687", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3749, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3749 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001729", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 11187, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 11187 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001732", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1337, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1337 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001733", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3702, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3702 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001736", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 21961, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 21961 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001762", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2525, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2525 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001768", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2637, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2637 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001859", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 19111, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 19111 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001868", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1299, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1299 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001870", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6710, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6710 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001872", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 566, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 566 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001884", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2250, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2250 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001885", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 13132, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 13132 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001895", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 510, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 510 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001900", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 21596, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 21596 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001904", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2038, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2038 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001916", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 596, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 596 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001924", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2568, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2568 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001927", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7050, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7050 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001943", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7520, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7520 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001953", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1763, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1763 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001961", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1787, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1787 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_001971", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9907, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9907 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_001989", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2625, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2625 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002000", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2781, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2781 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002006", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1034, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1034 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002028", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1830, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1830 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002030", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 357, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 357 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002032", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3869, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3869 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002039", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 276, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 276 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002056", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7741, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7741 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002068", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4792, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4792 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002071", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5187, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5187 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002072", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7003, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 7003 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002078", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4631, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4631 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002085", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2362, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2362 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002091", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3344, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3344 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002100", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1768, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1768 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002109", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1799, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1799 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002115", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1309, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1309 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002126", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1207, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1207 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002127", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1430, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1430 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002140", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3446, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3446 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002143", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1226, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1226 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002147", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2070, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2070 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002148", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3540, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3540 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002149", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5288, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5288 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002151", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 965, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 965 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002154", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4346, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4346 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002155", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1740, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1740 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002156", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2191, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 2191 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002158", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3248, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3248 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002161", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3305, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002171", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2313, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 2313 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002174", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1721, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1721 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002182", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2725, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2725 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002183", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2892, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2892 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002184", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3704, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3704 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002185", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2402, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2402 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002191", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3230, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3230 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002202", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 977, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 977 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002204", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1403, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1403 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002205", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2218, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2218 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002207", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4760, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4760 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002233", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 890, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 890 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002235", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 819, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 819 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002236", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 850, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 850 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002237", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1353, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1353 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002238", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 988, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 988 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002240", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1321, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1321 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002242", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1401, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1401 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002244", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1401, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1401 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002246", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1423, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1423 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002249", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4081, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4081 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002260", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3417, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3417 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002262", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7412, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7412 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002271", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5727, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 5727 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002276", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4685, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4685 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002278", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6150, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 6150 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002279", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3513, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3513 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002282", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4768, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4768 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002288", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1532, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1532 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002290", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2590, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2590 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002292", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2312, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 2312 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002295", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1569, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1569 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002296", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2595, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2595 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002299", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2331, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2331 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002300", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2326, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2326 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002302", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1653, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1653 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002307", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1436, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1436 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002317", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2779, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2779 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002320", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 879, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 879 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002328", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3052, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3052 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002330", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 10289, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 10289 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002331", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 649, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 649 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002337", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1488, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1488 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002352", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2315, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 2315 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002360", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 792, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 792 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002362", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1559, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1559 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002363", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1770, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1770 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002372", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1051, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1051 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002374", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2585, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2585 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002375", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4739, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4739 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002377", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1169, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1169 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002390", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2284, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2284 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002393", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1539, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1539 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002395", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3917, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3917 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002413", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 691, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 691 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002425", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3396, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3396 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002426", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5191, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 5191 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002429", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5906, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 5906 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002449", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2689, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2689 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002453", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2644, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2644 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002454", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 911, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 911 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002455", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1484, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1484 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002456", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3769, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3769 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002461", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1677, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1677 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002469", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1838, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1838 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002470", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1817, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1817 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002472", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1268, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1268 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002474", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2508, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2508 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002478", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3688, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3688 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002482", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3890, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3890 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002496", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1370, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1370 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002497", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1910, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1910 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002498", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1559, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1559 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002499", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1729, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1729 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002501", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1961, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1961 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002522", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5710, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5710 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002523", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9679, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9679 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002528", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2263, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2263 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002530", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5582, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 5582 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002535", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1882, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1882 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002536", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4329, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4329 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002537", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2212, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2212 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002539", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5392, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 5392 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002544", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1389, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1389 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002548", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2592, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2592 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002550", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7655, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7655 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002561", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2165, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2165 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002568", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1433, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1433 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002594", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 893, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 893 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002596", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6193, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6193 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002599", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2595, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2595 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002601", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1312, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1312 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_002607", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1479, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 1479 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002608", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1584, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1584 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002618", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1410, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1410 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002621", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1361, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1361 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002622", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1937, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1937 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002624", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1080, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1080 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002625", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1142, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1142 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002636", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2035, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2035 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002640", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1389, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1389 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002647", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1247, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002667", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 789, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 789 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002683", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 861, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 861 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002685", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1257, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1257 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002692", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4523, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 4523 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002701", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1675, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1675 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002708", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 422, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 422 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002728", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1470, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1470 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002745", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 658, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 658 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002752", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1362, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1362 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002769", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 744, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 744 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002775", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1943, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1943 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002777", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 772, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 772 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002778", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 664, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 664 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002788", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1073, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1073 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002789", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1785, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1785 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002794", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1510, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1510 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002805", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5373, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5373 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002806", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 786, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 786 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002807", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 887, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 887 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002821", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 848, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 848 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002833", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 979, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 979 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002834", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1271, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1271 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_002837", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2431, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2431 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002844", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 959, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 959 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002872", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1080, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1080 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002880", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1155, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1155 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002896", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2440, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2440 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002901", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2847, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2847 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002903", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 598, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 598 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002904", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1222, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1222 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002905", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1970, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1970 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002918", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1370, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1370 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002920", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 873, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 873 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002932", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 671, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 671 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002940", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 666, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 666 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002942", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 683, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 683 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002972", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1563, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1563 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002985", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2300, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2300 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_002997", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 887, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 887 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003012", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1768, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1768 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003024", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1059, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1059 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003028", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1022, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1022 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003029", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1049, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1049 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003046", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2091, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 2091 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003054", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 667, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 667 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003092", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 931, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 931 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003109", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 446, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 446 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003143", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3644, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3644 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003149", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1911, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1911 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003166", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1815, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1815 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_003173", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 165, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 165 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003177", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2730, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2730 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003178", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1445, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1445 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003180", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2345, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2345 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003188", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1247, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1247 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003223", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3452, "quality_score": 0.8, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3452 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003277", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7009, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7009 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003289", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 17910, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 17910 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003303", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1485, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1485 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003312", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1346, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1346 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003323", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2381, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2381 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003332", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 183, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 183 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003336", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4407, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4407 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003339", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6485, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6485 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003341", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7360, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7360 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003356", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4041, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4041 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003368", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9859, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9859 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003399", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 10067, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 10067 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003456", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1659, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1659 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003478", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6906, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6906 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003483", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1867, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1867 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003520", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6634, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6634 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003584", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2868, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2868 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003588", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 518, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 518 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003593", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8383, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8383 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003603", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 17909, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 17909 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003606", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3360, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3360 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003625", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2887, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2887 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003653", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9459, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9459 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003657", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1548, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1548 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003661", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2586, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2586 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003673", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2783, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2783 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003674", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 344, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 344 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003677", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8932, "quality_score": 0.8, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8932 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003684", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 151, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 151 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003687", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 926, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 926 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003696", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1331, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1331 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003716", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 262, "quality_score": 0.8, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 262 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003718", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4496, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4496 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003725", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 588, "quality_score": 0.8, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 588 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003748", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1461, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1461 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003751", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1124, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1124 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003752", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1428, "quality_score": 0.8, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1428 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003755", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2305, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2305 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003764", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3501, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3501 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003768", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 935, "quality_score": 0.8, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 935 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003782", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1933, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1933 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003787", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1987, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1987 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003793", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5014, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5014 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003797", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4026, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4026 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003799", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1690, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1690 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003854", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1595, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1595 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_003861", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 287, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 287 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003881", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8488, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8488 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003907", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8132, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 8132 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003919", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 889, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 889 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003925", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1256, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1256 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003935", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8307, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8307 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003942", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 24527, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 24527 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003947", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3555, "quality_score": 0.8, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3555 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003950", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 10274, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 10274 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003951", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3280, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3280 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003953", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8068, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8068 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003954", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 15783, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 15783 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_003973", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3589, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3589 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003976", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5330, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5330 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_003977", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6148, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6148 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "easy", "id": "seed_003978", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 202, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: easy. Expected answer length: 202 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004000", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4823, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4823 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004001", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7467, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7467 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004007", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5410, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5410 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004008", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 21298, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 21298 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004015", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8931, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8931 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004018", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6829, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6829 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004020", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7947, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7947 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004021", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 30359, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 30359 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004023", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 13386, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 13386 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004027", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2472, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2472 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004039", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8874, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8874 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004052", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5365, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5365 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004086", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 697, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 697 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004094", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 40402, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 40402 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004101", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 11318, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 11318 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004109", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5392, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5392 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004114", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1300, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1300 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004118", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 21617, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 21617 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004128", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 11261, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 11261 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The API or widget is used exactly as documented in the Flutter SDK; correct parameters, named arguments, and lifecycle callbacks.", "name": "API Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Incorrect API usage; wrong widget or method, broken parameters.", "1": "Major API errors; several parameters or lifecycle hooks are wrong.", "2": "Partially correct API usage with significant misuse or missing arguments.", "3": "Mostly correct; minor parameter misuse or deprecated member usage.", "4": "Correct API usage; only a trivial improvement or modern alternative is missing.", "5": "Perfect API usage; matches latest stable Flutter SDK documentation precisely."}}, {"description": "All required API features, callbacks, and configuration options from the prompt are present.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested API features are demonstrated.", "1": "Minimal demonstration; only the simplest constructor is shown.", "2": "Partial demonstration; several important properties or callbacks missing.", "3": "Most features shown but one or two key behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional configuration is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requested API capability is demonstrated."}}, {"description": "Proper context usage, efficient rebuild scope, and avoidance of unnecessary global state.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; global state, setState abuse, or context misuse.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget rebuilds are not scoped properly.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; inefficient rebuilds.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for scoping or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from idiomatic usage.", "5": "Excellent practices; scoped rebuilds, proper context access, clean architecture."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent formatting, poor naming, excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; hard to read and inconsistent naming conventions.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear formatting, consistent naming, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting code."}}, {"description": "Inline comments, docstrings, or explanatory text clarify the API usage for readers.", "name": "Documentation", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No documentation; code is uncommented and unclear.", "1": "Minimal documentation; only trivial or auto-generated comments.", "2": "Some helpful comments but many complex sections are unexplained.", "3": "Basic documentation covers main logic but misses subtle API choices.", "4": "Good documentation; most non-obvious choices are explained.", "5": "Excellent documentation; every non-trivial API choice is clearly explained."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004131", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5048, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: api_usage. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5048 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "api_usage"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004133", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3624, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 3624 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004136", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 13030, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 13030 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004148", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 17453, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 17453 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004153", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 20924, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 20924 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004155", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 27091, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 27091 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004164", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 41193, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 41193 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004186", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 40612, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 40612 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004191", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 6526, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 6526 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004195", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 749, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 749 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004196", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3184, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3184 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004197", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4476, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4476 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004199", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7728, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7728 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004204", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5218, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 5218 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004205", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 20597, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 20597 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004207", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 5048, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 5048 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004210", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 44406, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 44406 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004213", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 19630, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 19630 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004219", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9444, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9444 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004223", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4200, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4200 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004226", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3473, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3473 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004238", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 41453, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 41453 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004242", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 666, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 666 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004246", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 32149, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 32149 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004247", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1025, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1025 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004252", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 712, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 712 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004257", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7990, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7990 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004262", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 4414, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 4414 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004266", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1703, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1703 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004267", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 8167, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 8167 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated code correctly implements the requested functionality without logical errors, missing imports, or broken widget trees.", "name": "Correctness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Completely incorrect or irrelevant; does not compile or address the prompt.", "1": "Major errors prevent the code from working; wrong widget used or logic is inverted.", "2": "Partially correct with significant bugs; some imports missing or state handling broken.", "3": "Mostly correct with minor issues; small layout bugs or missing null checks remain.", "4": "Correct with very minor issues; only cosmetic or non-functional deviations.", "5": "Fully correct and robust; compiles and behaves as specified under normal conditions."}}, {"description": "All requested features, widgets, and behaviors from the prompt are present in the answer without omissions.", "name": "Completeness", "score_descriptions": {"0": "None of the requested features are implemented.", "1": "Most features are missing; only a stub or skeleton is present.", "2": "Several key features are missing; partial implementation only.", "3": "Most features present but one or two important behaviors are omitted.", "4": "Nearly complete; only a minor optional detail is missing.", "5": "Fully complete; every requirement from the prompt is addressed."}}, {"description": "Use of idiomatic Flutter patterns: proper widget composition, separation of concerns, efficient rebuilds, and appropriate use of Material/Cupertino.", "name": "Flutter Best Practices", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Anti-patterns throughout; e.g., setState in build or excessive global state.", "1": "Frequent anti-patterns; widget tree is deeply nested without extract methods.", "2": "Some best practices followed but several issues remain; poor Key usage.", "3": "Reasonable practices; a few missed opportunities for optimization or reuse.", "4": "Good practices; minor deviations from community idioms.", "5": "Excellent idiomatic Flutter; clean architecture, efficient rebuilds, proper Keys."}}, {"description": "Formatting, naming conventions, consistent indentation, and readability comparable to dartfmt / Effective Dart guidelines.", "name": "Code Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; inconsistent naming, no formatting, or excessive nesting.", "1": "Poor style; naming is unclear and formatting is inconsistent.", "2": "Below average style; some conventions followed but many violations.", "3": "Acceptable style; mostly readable with minor formatting issues.", "4": "Good style; clear naming, consistent formatting, easy to read.", "5": "Excellent style; follows Effective Dart, clean formatting, self-documenting names."}}, {"description": "Graceful handling of edge cases, null safety, async errors, and user input validation.", "name": "Error Handling", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No error handling; null safety violated, crashes on edge cases.", "1": "Minimal handling; obvious crashes possible with empty input or null values.", "2": "Some checks present but missing key edge cases; async errors unhandled.", "3": "Basic handling in place; most common errors caught but not all.", "4": "Good handling; robust null safety and async error coverage with minor gaps.", "5": "Excellent handling; comprehensive null safety, async guards, and input validation."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004268", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 660, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: question_to_code. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 660 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "question_to_code"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004270", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 673, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 673 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004271", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 10640, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 10640 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004273", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 22591, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 22591 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004276", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9521, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9521 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004282", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1322, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1322 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004288", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1645, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1645 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004295", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2748, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2748 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004298", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 46292, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 46292 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004299", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 9539, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 9539 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004303", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3602, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3602 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004304", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 2350, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 2350 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004312", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3384, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3384 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004315", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 34880, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 34880 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004322", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7890, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7890 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004325", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1243, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1243 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004327", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1080, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1080 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004336", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3630, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3630 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "medium", "id": "seed_004344", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1403, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: medium. Expected answer length: 1403 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004345", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 3942, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 3942 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004349", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 656, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 656 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004352", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1969, "quality_score": 0.95, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1969 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004358", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 45406, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 45406 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004361", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 12139, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 12139 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004368", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7064, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7064 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004369", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1521, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1521 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004389", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 7609, "quality_score": 0.9, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 7609 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004390", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 1381, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 1381 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}
{"criteria": [{"description": "The generated tests cover the critical user-visible behaviors, accessibility properties, and widget states described in the prompt.", "name": "Test Coverage", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No relevant tests; empty or unrelated test file.", "1": "Minimal coverage; only a trivial smoke test exists.", "2": "Partial coverage; some important behaviors are not tested.", "3": "Mostly covered; one or two key interaction or semantic checks missing.", "4": "Comprehensive coverage; only an edge case or optional behavior is missing.", "5": "Full coverage; every specified behavior, accessibility check, and state is tested."}}, {"description": "Tests follow Flutter's testWidgets / group / setUp patterns and are runnable in a standard `flutter test` environment without modification.", "name": "Executable Test Style", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Not executable; missing imports, wrong function signatures, or syntax errors.", "1": "Barely executable; requires heavy manual fixes to run.", "2": "Runnable with significant manual patching; wrong pump or finder patterns.", "3": "Mostly executable; minor fixes needed for imports or test setup.", "4": "Ready to run; only trivial import path tweaks may be needed.", "5": "Fully executable; correct imports, proper pumpWidget, clean test structure."}}, {"description": "Expectations are specific, meaningful, and verify the intended behavior rather than trivial or tautological checks.", "name": "Assertions", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No assertions or only tautological checks (e.g., expect(true, isTrue)).", "1": "Very weak assertions; do not verify the actual widget behavior.", "2": "Some meaningful assertions but many are too generic or miss the point.", "3": "Most assertions are meaningful; a few could be more specific or rigorous.", "4": "Strong assertions; closely match the expected behavior with minor improvements possible.", "5": "Excellent assertions; precise, behavior-driven, and directly tied to the prompt requirements."}}, {"description": "Tests account for edge cases such as disabled states, empty input, screen scaling, semantics variations, and error paths.", "name": "Edge Cases", "score_descriptions": {"0": "No edge cases considered; only the happy path is tested.", "1": "One trivial edge case considered; most variations ignored.", "2": "A few edge cases present but important ones (e.g., disabled, empty) missing.", "3": "Basic edge cases covered; some advanced variations (scaling, semantics) missing.", "4": "Good edge case coverage; nearly all specified variations are tested.", "5": "Comprehensive edge cases; accessibility scaling, disabled states, errors all verified."}}, {"description": "Test names, variable names, and structure are self-documenting and easy to maintain.", "name": "Clarity", "score_descriptions": {"0": "Unreadable; cryptic names, no structure, or commented-out code left in.", "1": "Poor clarity; names do not describe what is being tested.", "2": "Below average; some good names but inconsistent style or structure.", "3": "Acceptable clarity; names describe behavior but could be more descriptive.", "4": "Good clarity; well-named tests and clear structure throughout.", "5": "Excellent clarity; descriptive test names, logical grouping, easy to navigate."}}], "difficulty": "hard", "id": "seed_004397", "metadata": {"expected_answer_chars": 11124, "quality_score": 1.0, "version": "v2"}, "rubric_summary": "Score each criterion 0-5. Task type: test_generation. Difficulty: hard. Expected answer length: 11124 chars. Sum of criteria scores yields a raw 0-25 score, which is normalized to 0-5.", "score_scale": "0-5", "scoring_protocol": {"excellent_raw": 23, "max_raw_score": 25, "minimum_passing_raw": 15, "normalization": "divide by 5 to get 0-5 overall score", "rounding": "round half-up to one decimal place"}, "task_type": "test_generation"}