@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/mermaid_flowcharts-mind_maps/mind-mapping-mini-program.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1393,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code where possible. Create a practical mind mapping mini-program or executable HTML code that will allow me to easily create mind maps.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core mind mapping functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements node creation, deletion, editing, and hierarchical relationships through HTML/JavaScript/SVG. Must include drag-and-drop node positioning, parent-child relationship management, and dynamic branch connections. Score 0 if basic node operations are missing, 5 if only static node display is implemented, and 10 if full interactive mind mapping with real-time connection updates is achieved.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the visual node connection system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the connection lines between nodes use proper algorithms (Bezier curves or optimized paths) and dynamically update when nodes are moved. Evaluate if connection points are accurately calculated and visually appealing. Deduct 5 points if connections don't follow nodes during drag operations, 3 points if line overlapping issues exist, and 5 points if connection algorithms cause performance issues. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is comprehensive data persistence and export functionality provided?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the mind map data can be saved locally (localStorage/IndexedDB) and exported in standard formats (JSON/XML/PNG/SVG). Check if import functionality exists for data recovery. Deduct 5 points if only basic localStorage is used without proper data structure, 3 points if export formats are limited, and 5 points if no import/recovery mechanism exists. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is advanced mind mapping interaction design implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes professional mind mapping features such as node styling customization (colors, shapes, fonts), zoom and pan functionality, keyboard shortcuts, and multi-selection operations. Deduct 5 points if zoom/pan is not smooth or missing, 3 points if keyboard shortcuts are not implemented, and 5 points if node customization options are limited. Give 10 points if fully implemented with professional UX patterns.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust and handles edge cases properly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid node operations, data corruption, browser compatibility issues, and memory leaks during extensive mind map creation). Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases and provide user-friendly error messages. Give 10 points for excellent error handling, 5 points for basic exception handling, and 0 points if no error handling exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance user experience?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes advanced features that distinguish it from basic mind mapping tools (e.g., 1. Auto-layout algorithms for optimal node positioning 2. Template system with predefined mind map structures 3. Real-time collaboration features 4. AI-powered content suggestions 5. Advanced search and filtering). Add 2-3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant or unnecessary features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check for three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate functionality implementations (e.g., multiple save mechanisms that conflict) 2. Features unrelated to mind mapping core purpose (e.g., built-in games or social media integration) 3. Over-engineered animations that impact performance without adding value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with core mind mapping functionality.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code demonstrate high engineering quality standards?",
+      "description": "Review modular architecture (separation of data model, view rendering, and user interaction layers), code organization, and maintainability. Check for proper event handling, memory management, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points for poor separation of concerns or spaghetti code structure; deduct 5 points if code duplication exceeds 25%; deduct 5 points for inefficient DOM manipulation or rendering bottlenecks. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional visual standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the mind mapping interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clean and intuitive toolbar design with proper iconography 2) Consistent color scheme that enhances readability (background contrast ratio ≥ 4.5:1) 3) Proper spacing and typography (minimum 12px font size, adequate line spacing). Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 5 points for poor color contrast or accessibility issues, and 5 points for inconsistent visual hierarchy. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Are the interactive animations smooth and enhance usability?",
+      "description": "Judge whether dynamic effects support productive mind mapping workflow: 1) Node creation/deletion animations are smooth and provide clear feedback 2) Drag operations have appropriate visual cues and snap-to-grid behavior 3) Zoom/pan transitions are fluid without jarring jumps 4) Loading states and transitions don't interrupt user flow. Deduct 5 points for laggy animations during complex operations, 3 points for missing visual feedback on user actions, and 5 points for disorienting or excessive animations. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Mermaid Flowcharts-Mind Maps",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/mermaid_flowcharts-mind_maps/online-editable-mind-map.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1177,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure that any code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Create an online-editable mind map.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core mind map rendering system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code creates a complete visual mind map structure with nodes and connections using SVG/Canvas/HTML. Verify if it includes essential features like node creation, connection drawing, and hierarchical representation. Score 0 if the mind map structure is not implemented, 5 if basic node display is implemented without proper connections, and 10 if a complete hierarchical mind map with proper visualization is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the editing functionality comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can add, edit, delete, and move nodes through intuitive interactions. Check for features like inline text editing, node dragging, context menus, and keyboard shortcuts. Deduct 3 points if inline editing is missing, 3 points if drag-and-drop functionality isn't smooth, and 4 points if keyboard shortcuts aren't implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the data structure design optimized for mind maps?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code uses an appropriate tree-like data structure that efficiently represents hierarchical relationships and supports operations like adding child nodes, reordering siblings, and collapsing/expanding branches. Check if the data model is separate from the view layer. Deduct 5 points if the data structure doesn't properly maintain parent-child relationships, and 5 points if there's no clean separation between data and presentation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are data persistence and sharing mechanisms implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the mind map can be saved (locally or cloud-based) and if the implementation includes export/import functionality in standard formats (like JSON, FreeMind, etc.). Check if there's a real-time collaboration feature or sharing capability. Award 3 points for local storage implementation, 3 points for export/import functionality, and 4 points for sharing or collaboration features. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input, browser compatibility issues, large mind maps, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for defensive programming practices like input validation and error handling. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Auto-layout algorithms 2. Rich node formatting options 3. Image/attachment support 4. Node filtering/searching 5. Presentation mode). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to achieve the same editing operation) 2. Function modules unrelated to mind mapping (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data model/view/controller layers), unit test coverage, and code organization. Check for proper event handling patterns and performance optimization for large mind maps. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 2 points if there's no performance optimization for large datasets. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing and node distribution 3) Professional font system (consistent typography hierarchy, readable font sizes) 4) Intuitive visual cues for editing operations. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 3 points for a glaring color combination, and 4 points for confusing user interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Node creation/editing feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth animations for expanding/collapsing nodes (300-500ms) 3) Responsive drag-and-drop with visual feedback 4) Clear indication of selected/active nodes. Deduct 3 points for each operation without feedback, 2 points for jerky animations during interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-use editing controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Mermaid Flowcharts-Mind Maps",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/mermaid_flowcharts-mind_maps/present-research-findings-mind-map-markmap.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1238,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Present the main research findings in a mind map format. Output using markmap code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the markmap implementation complete and functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the markmap code correctly implements the core HTML/JavaScript structure required for mind map visualization. Check if the code includes proper initialization of the markmap library, DOM element creation, and rendering logic. Score 0 if no functional markmap implementation is present, 5 if basic structure exists but has functionality issues, and 10 if the markmap renders properly with correct hierarchical structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the data structure for the mind map properly designed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the mind map data structure follows a logical hierarchical format with proper parent-child relationships. Check for appropriate nesting levels, clear node relationships, and coherent organization of information. Deduct 5 points if the hierarchy is flat or poorly organized, 3 points if some relationships are illogical. Full points require a well-structured tree-like data format that clearly represents conceptual relationships.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the research findings accurately represented in the mind map?",
+      "description": "Verify that the mind map content properly represents research findings with accurate categorization and logical grouping. Primary branches should represent major research areas, with sub-branches showing detailed findings and relationships. Deduct 5 points if major research components are missing, 3 points if the categorization is misleading. Full score requires comprehensive representation of all key findings with proper context and relationships.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the markmap interactive and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes essential interactive features like node expansion/collapse, zooming, panning, and clickable elements. Evaluate if the mind map responds to user interactions properly. Deduct 5 points if basic interactivity is missing, 3 points if the interaction is sluggish or unintuitive. Full points require smooth, intuitive interactions with appropriate visual feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as malformed data, browser compatibility issues, rendering failures) and provide fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include error handling, browser feature detection, and graceful degradation. Give 10 points if comprehensive error handling exists, 5 points if basic error handling is present, and 0 points if no exception handling is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Custom node styling based on content type 2. Search/filter functionality for large mind maps 3. Export options to different formats). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant visualization libraries loaded but not used 2. Function modules unrelated to mind mapping 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data handling/visualization/interaction layers), code reusability, and optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found or proper encapsulation is not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimizations are implemented for large mind maps. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the mind map visualization follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color scheme for different hierarchy levels 2) Proper spacing between nodes and branches 3) Professional typography with readable font sizes and appropriate contrast. Deduct 3 points for cluttered node placement, 5 points for poor color choices that hinder readability, and 5 points for inconsistent visual hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the mind map interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Node expansion/collapse animations between 200-400ms 2) Smooth zooming and panning without visual stuttering 3) Clear visual focus indication for selected nodes. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for delayed response to user input, and 5 points for confusing state changes during interactions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Mermaid Flowcharts-Mind Maps",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/mermaid_flowcharts-mind_maps/study-guide-mind-map-generator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1214,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable. I need a piece of code that can create a mind map. I have a PDF file called \"《Chinese Modern Literature: Thirty Years》Study Guide_11950065\". My requirement is to organize the key points, difficult areas, required reading lists, timeline events, authors and their works, as well as their literary significance mentioned in the file, and create a mind map from this information. Please generate a complete, runnable code for me.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the mind map core structure implementation complete?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a tree data structure to support the hierarchical organization of mind map nodes and provides methods to add, delete, edit, and navigate these nodes. Check if the data model logically separates nodes, connections, and content. Score 0 if fundamental mind map structure is missing, 5 if a basic tree structure is implemented but lacks manipulation functions, and 10 if a robust hierarchical data structure with full CRUD operations is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the code provide PDF parsing and content extraction functionality?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the code includes reliable PDF parsing capabilities (e.g., using libraries like pdf.js, pdfminer, PyPDF2) that extract text content, identify headings/sections, and recognize structural elements from the '《Chinese Modern Literature: Thirty Years》Study Guide'. Deduct 5 points if only basic text extraction is implemented without structure recognition, deduct 3 points if the extraction fails to handle Chinese characters properly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there intelligent content categorization for Chinese literature elements?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code contains algorithms or patterns to automatically identify and categorize key literary elements (key points, difficult areas, reading lists, timeline events, authors and works, literary significance) from the extracted text. Check for natural language processing techniques or rule-based systems to organize content. Score 0 if no categorization exists, 5 if basic keyword matching is used, and 10 if sophisticated content analysis with context awareness is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the visualization component effectively render the mind map?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the quality of the mind map rendering - check if it uses appropriate libraries (D3.js, GoJS, vis.js) or implements custom graphics rendering. The visualization should support zooming, panning, and proper hierarchical layout with Chinese text rendering. Deduct 5 points if the layout algorithm results in overlapping nodes, 3 points if zoom/pan controls are missing, and 5 points if Chinese characters display incorrectly. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common error cases (invalid PDF format, parsing failures, empty sections, memory limitations with large files) and provides appropriate error messages or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should properly validate inputs, handle Unicode/Chinese characters correctly, and manage memory efficiently. Score 10 for comprehensive error handling, 5 for basic validation, and 0 if critical errors are unhandled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Auto-summarization of literary concepts 2. Integration with literature databases for additional context 3. Timeline visualization for historical literary events 4. Author relationship network visualization). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant data processing pipelines (multiple text extraction methods without clear purpose) 2. Feature modules unrelated to literature mind mapping (e.g., built-in document editor) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core mind mapping functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of PDF parsing, data processing, mind map visualization), code reusability, documentation quality, and development workflow integration. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused or module boundaries are unclear; deduct 5 points if code duplication exceeds 30%; deduct 5 points if documentation is insufficient for complex functions. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the mind map design follows modern visualization principles: 1) Appropriate use of color to distinguish different categories of literature concepts 2) Clear hierarchical spacing between mind map levels 3) Legible typography for Chinese text (appropriate font choice, sufficient size). Deduct 3 points for visually cluttered node arrangements, 5 points for poor color contrast that affects readability, and 5 points for improper handling of long Chinese text. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the mind map interactions suit user expectations: 1) Responsive node expansion/collapse (≤100ms) 2) Smooth transitions when navigating between different levels (300-500ms) 3) Intuitive controls for reorganizing nodes. Deduct 5 points for laggy rendering with many nodes, 3 points for jarring transitions between mind map states, and 5 points for unintuitive node manipulation controls. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Mermaid Flowcharts-Mind Maps",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/mermaid_flowcharts-mind_maps/vue-parse-json-xmind-display-mind-map.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 420,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create Vue code to parse JSON xmind files and display them as a mind map on a webpage.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue component structure properly organized for the mind map?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code follows Vue best practices with a clear component hierarchy separating concerns (parser, renderer, interactions). Check for proper use of props, emits and vue lifecycle hooks. Score 0 if components are missing or poorly structured, 5 if basic structure exists but has organizational issues, and 10 if components are well-designed with clear responsibilities and interfaces.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the code correctly parse the JSON xmind file format?",
+      "description": "Review whether the parser can handle the complete xmind JSON schema, including root topics, subtopics, relationships, markers, notes, and labels. Check for edge cases like empty nodes, deeply nested structures, and special characters. Deduct 3 points if only basic topic structure is parsed, 3 points if relationships are missing, and 2 points if markers or notes aren't supported. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the mind map visualization fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code properly renders the hierarchical structure with appropriate layout algorithms (radial, horizontal, vertical). Check if the visualization handles different node depths, maintains proper spacing, and avoids overlapping elements. Score 0 if visualization is broken/missing, 5 if basic rendering exists but has layout issues, and 10 if the mind map is properly displayed with a professional appearance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are interactive features implemented for mind map manipulation?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the implementation includes essential interaction features: expand/collapse nodes, drag-and-drop positioning, zooming, and panning. Check if the code handles selecting nodes and editing content. Deduct 2 points per missing core interaction feature. Award full 10 points only if all interactions feel smooth and intuitive on different screen sizes.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as malformed JSON, missing properties, extremely large mind maps, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time collaborative editing 2. Export to different formats (PNG, PDF) 3. Keyboard shortcuts for navigation 4. Customizable themes or node styling). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple rendering engines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to mind mapping (e.g., unrelated visualizations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow rendering). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating parsing/rendering/interaction layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if Vue composition API/options API are inconsistently mixed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error handling or logging. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching for nodes and connections 2) Proper layout spacing between nodes and branches 3) Professional font system with good readability and hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic node arrangement or unclear hierarchical representation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Node expansion/collapse animations between 200-400ms 2) Smooth transitions when navigating or rearranging 3) Clear visual feedback for selections and interactions. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for laggy performance with larger mind maps, and 5 points for confusing interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Mermaid Flowcharts-Mind Maps",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/mermaid_flowcharts-mind_maps/vue2-g6-mind-map-implementation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 361,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Generate frontend code for implementing a mind map using Vue2 and G6.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core mind map data structure properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code defines a proper hierarchical data structure for the mind map, including nodes and edges with appropriate attributes. Check if it handles parent-child relationships, node positions, and visual properties. Give 0 points if the data structure is missing, 5 points if it's basic but functional, and 10 points if it's comprehensive with support for rich metadata.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the G6 graph initialization and configuration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if G6 is correctly initialized with proper container, plugins, and configurations. Evaluate whether the code sets appropriate behaviors (drag, zoom, click), node/edge styles, and layout algorithms. Deduct 3 points if basic configuration is missing, 5 points if interaction modes are incomplete, and 2 points if performance optimizations are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the core mind map operations implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether essential operations are implemented: adding nodes, deleting nodes, editing node content, collapsing/expanding branches, and reorganizing the hierarchy. Score 0 if these core functions are missing, 5 if only basic operations work, and 10 if all operations are implemented with proper event handling and state management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the Vue2 integration with G6 properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the integration between Vue2 reactive system and G6 rendering. Check for proper component lifecycle management, reactive data flow, and event handling between Vue and G6. Deduct 5 points if G6 instances aren't properly disposed on component destruction, 3 points if reactivity is broken, and 3 points if Vue events don't properly trigger G6 updates. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid data structures, operation errors, rendering failures) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Automatic layout optimization 2. Keyboard shortcuts for quick operations 3. Custom node themes 4. Export/import functionality). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to perform the same action) 2. Function modules unrelated to mind mapping (e.g., built-in calculators or unrelated widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down interaction). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating graph logic/UI components/data management), component reusability, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state management is messy or Vue best practices aren't followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns between G6 rendering and Vue component logic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the mind map follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors for nodes) 2) Proper layout spacing (consistent node distances and hierarchy indentation) 3) Professional typography (readable font sizes and weights for different hierarchy levels). Deduct 3 points for each visual inconsistency, 5 points for poor color contrast, and 5 points for cluttered node arrangements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the mind map interactions feel natural: 1) Node dragging responds immediately 2) Expand/collapse animations are smooth and under 300ms 3) Zooming and panning work intuitively. Deduct 5 points for laggy node creation/deletion, 3 points for jerky animations during rearrangement, and 5 points for unresponsive editing interactions. Check if the mind map properly renders and updates even with large datasets. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Mermaid Flowcharts-Mind Maps",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/ai-audio-restoration-tool-with-waveform-comparison.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 606,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that any code you generate is executable. Please implement an AI-based audio restoration tool where users can upload audio files containing noise, distortion, or poor sound quality, and the system will automatically detect and repair these issues through algorithms. The tool should provide functions such as noise reduction, distortion repair, volume normalization, and audio quality enhancement, and allow users to adjust the repair intensity through parameters. The interface should display before-and-after waveform comparisons, allowing users to visually experience the restoration effects.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio upload and handling functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a robust mechanism for uploading audio files (supporting common formats like MP3, WAV, FLAC, OGG), proper validation of file types and sizes, and error handling for corrupt files. Check if the audio processing pipeline correctly decodes the audio for further manipulation with proper memory management. Score 0 if basic upload is missing, 5 if only basic formats are supported without validation, and 10 if comprehensive upload handling with proper error management is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "How comprehensive are the AI-based audio restoration algorithms?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of core restoration algorithms including: 1) Noise reduction (spectral gating, adaptive noise filtering), 2) Distortion repair (harmonic analysis, clipping restoration), 3) Volume normalization (RMS/LUFS standards compliance), and 4) General quality enhancement (frequency response correction, dynamic range processing). Deduct 3 points for each missing algorithm. Award full points only if implementations include proper signal processing principles with AI integration (ML models, neural networks, or advanced DSP techniques).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the parameter adjustment system user-friendly and effective?",
+      "description": "Assess whether users can adjust repair intensity through intuitive controls (sliders, knobs) for each restoration function with appropriate ranges and defaults. Check if real-time preview capability exists, parameter presets are available, and tooltips explain each parameter's function. Deduct 5 points if adjustments don't produce audible differences in output, 3 points if controls lack visual feedback, and 2 points if parameter ranges are inappropriate for their functions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "How effective is the before-and-after waveform visualization?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the quality of waveform rendering showing both original and processed audio. Check for synchronized playback indicators, zoom functionality, highlighting of modified sections, and ability to switch between waveform/spectrogram views. Waveforms should update in real-time when parameters change. Deduct 5 points if visualizations aren't accurate representations of the audio data, 3 points if comparative analysis tools are missing, and 2 points if the visualization isn't responsive to user interaction.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, extremely noisy inputs, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large files) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-based content identification 2. Automatic detection of optimal restoration settings 3. Batch processing capabilities 4. Export with restoration history metadata). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar audio processing algorithms 2. Function modules unrelated to audio restoration (e.g., unnecessary media playback features) 3. Computationally expensive visualizations that affect performance without adding value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing logic/UI/file handling layers), unit test coverage for processing algorithms, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated or audio processing workloads aren't properly optimized. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Parameter adjustment feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indication of processing status during heavy computations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy audio preview during parameter changes, and 5 points for unclear indication of when processing is complete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-clip-management-tagging-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 566,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Design an audio clip management and tagging tool where users can upload multiple audio clips, add tags and descriptions to each clip, and search and filter clips by tags.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a robust file upload system that supports multiple audio formats (MP3, WAV, OGG, etc.). Check for validation of file types, handling of large files (chunked uploads or progress indicators), and proper error handling during upload failures. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic single file upload exists, and 10 if it includes multiple file upload with format validation and progress tracking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the tagging system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the tagging implementation, including creating, assigning, and managing tags for audio clips. Check if it supports both predefined tags and custom user-created tags, tag categorization, and tag auto-completion suggestions. Deduct 3 points if tag creation is limited, 3 points if bulk tag operations are missing, and 2 points if there's no visual differentiation between tag types. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the search and filter functionality work effectively?",
+      "description": "Assess the implementation of search and filtering features. Check for text-based search across clip titles, descriptions, and tags, as well as advanced filtering options (by date, duration, format, etc.). Verify that filters can be combined and that results update dynamically. Deduct 3 points if only basic text search exists, 3 points if filter combinations aren't supported, and 2 points if search results don't update in real-time. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio playback interface well-designed?",
+      "description": "Review the audio player implementation, checking for essential controls (play/pause, volume, seek, speed control), waveform visualization, and keyboard shortcuts. Verify that it handles various audio formats and includes accessibility features. Deduct 3 points for missing waveform visualization, 2 points for incomplete playback controls, and 3 points if keyboard controls are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, network interruptions, database failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered automatic tagging suggestions 2. Audio transcription for searchable text 3. Collaborative tagging system for teams). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple audio processing libraries doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio management (e.g., a built-in image editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during audio playback). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing/UI/data management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast audio list scrolling, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}