docs
evals
scenario-1
scenario-10
scenario-2
scenario-3
scenario-4
scenario-5
scenario-6
scenario-7
scenario-8
scenario-9
{
"context": "This criteria evaluates how effectively the engineer uses the cjs-module-lexer package to extract and validate JavaScript identifiers, with focus on leveraging the package's grammar validation capabilities for ECMA-262 identifiers and surrogate pairs.",
"type": "weighted_checklist",
"checklist": [
{
"name": "Uses parse function",
"description": "Correctly uses the cjs-module-lexer `parse()` function to analyze JavaScript source code",
"max_score": 25
},
{
"name": "Extracts exports correctly",
"description": "Extracts identifiers from the `exports` array returned by `parse()` function",
"max_score": 20
},
{
"name": "Handles Unicode identifiers",
"description": "Solution correctly handles Unicode identifiers including multi-byte characters, leveraging the lexer's built-in Unicode support",
"max_score": 20
},
{
"name": "Validates surrogate pairs",
"description": "Correctly processes identifiers containing UTF-16 surrogate pairs, relying on the lexer's surrogate pair validation",
"max_score": 20
},
{
"name": "Filters reserved words",
"description": "Identifies and filters out JavaScript reserved words from valid identifiers, using the lexer's strict reserved word filtering",
"max_score": 15
}
]
}