@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-echo-effect-processor.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 564,
+  "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. Design an audio echo effect processor where users can upload audio files, select echo delay time and intensity, and preview the echo effect in real-time. After editing, users can export the audio file with the echo effect applied.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload and parsing functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements audio file upload with support for multiple formats (MP3, WAV, FLAC, etc.), includes proper file validation and size limits, and accurately parses audio data using Web Audio API or similar technology. Check if waveform visualization is provided for uploaded audio. Score 0 if basic upload is not working, 5 if only basic upload without validation is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive file handling with format support and validation is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the echo effect processing algorithm correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the echo effect uses proper digital signal processing techniques with configurable delay time (typically 50ms-2000ms range) and intensity/feedback controls (0-100% range). Check if the implementation uses delay buffers, feedback loops, and proper mixing algorithms. Verify that the echo parameters produce audible and mathematically correct results. Deduct 5 points if delay timing is inaccurate, 3 points if intensity control doesn't work properly. Full score requires professional-grade audio processing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is real-time preview functionality implemented with low latency?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system provides real-time audio preview with applied echo effects, maintaining audio latency under 100ms for responsive user experience. Evaluate if the preview updates immediately when parameters change and includes proper audio buffer management. Verify that playback controls (play/pause/seek) work correctly with processed audio. Deduct 5 points if latency exceeds 200ms, 3 points if parameter changes don't update in real-time. Full score requires seamless real-time processing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio export functionality complete with proper encoding?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes complete audio export functionality that renders the final processed audio with echo effects applied, supports multiple output formats (WAV, MP3), and maintains original audio quality. Check if the export process handles long audio files efficiently and provides progress indication. Deduct 5 points if export quality is degraded, 3 points if only one format is supported, 5 points if no progress indication for long exports. Full score requires professional export capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, unsupported formats, memory limitations, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle audio processing errors, file size limitations, and browser audio context issues, 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 audio editing experience (e.g., 1. Visual waveform editing with echo visualization 2. Preset echo templates (hall, chamber, canyon effects) 3. Multi-tap delay with rhythm synchronization 4. Spectral analysis visualization during processing). 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 functions (e.g., multiple echo algorithms coexisting unnecessarily) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio echo processing (e.g., built-in video player or image editor) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact audio processing performance (e.g., complex 3D visualizations during real-time processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core audio 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/file handling layers), proper Web Audio API usage patterns, and error handling architecture. Deduct 5 points if global audio context pollution is found or audio processing patterns are not properly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper audio resource cleanup is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional audio software design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional audio software principles: 1) Professional dark theme suitable for audio work 2) Clear parameter controls with proper labeling (delay time in ms, intensity in %) 3) Intuitive waveform visualization with proper scaling 4) Professional typography for technical values. Deduct 3 points for each poorly designed control element, 5 points for unprofessional color schemes that strain eyes during audio work, and 5 points for confusing parameter layouts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the audio interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the audio interface interactions conform to professional audio software standards: 1) Parameter adjustment response time ≤ 50ms for real-time feel 2) Smooth waveform scrubbing and playback control 3) Clear visual feedback for all audio states (loading, processing, playing) 4) Proper audio fade-in/out to prevent clicks and pops. Deduct 5 points for each audio operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for audio artifacts during parameter changes, and 5 points for confusing audio state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-echo-effect-tool-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 623,
+  "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 and displayable. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code according to these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code, and ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Make sure all the code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Before providing the final output, carefully review and check all code to evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or the use of user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nImplement a front-end tool for adding echo effects to audio. Users can upload audio, set the echo intensity and delay time, add the echo effect to the audio, then listen to and save the new audio.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly implements file input for audio uploads with proper file type validation (accepting common audio formats like MP3, WAV, OGG). Verify if error handling exists for cases like invalid files, oversized files, or failed uploads. Score 0 if audio upload is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation, and 10 if upload is fully implemented with proper validation and error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the echo effect parameters properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the implementation allows users to adjust at least two key echo parameters: delay time (milliseconds) and intensity/feedback level (percentage). Check for appropriate input controls with reasonable value ranges and step intervals. Verify if the UI includes real-time feedback as parameters change. Deduct 5 points if only one parameter is implemented, 3 points if parameters lack appropriate constraints or validation, and 2 points if there's no visual feedback during adjustment.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the audio processing functionality correctly implemented using Web Audio API?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the implementation correctly uses the Web Audio API to create the echo effect. Check for proper implementation of audio nodes (AudioContext, DelayNode, GainNode) and their connections. The echo effect should be implemented by combining delay and gain nodes in the correct configuration. Score 0 if Web Audio API isn't used at all, 5 if basic nodes are used but incorrectly connected, and 10 if the audio graph is correctly implemented for a true echo effect.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio playback and preview functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Verify if users can play both the original and processed audio. Check for basic playback controls (play/pause at minimum), audio visualization, and the ability to compare original vs processed audio. Deduct 5 points if there's no way to compare before/after results, 3 points if playback controls are incomplete, and 2 points if there's no visual indicator of playback status or progress.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported audio formats, browser compatibility issues, memory management for large audio files, 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 audio visualization 2. Multiple echo preset configurations 3. Batch processing capability). 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 used together) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio processing (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the interface). 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), error handling coverage, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for browser memory management when dealing with audio buffers. 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) Immediate feedback when applying echo effects 2) Smooth transitions when switching between original and processed audio 3) Clear visual indication during audio processing. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy performance during audio processing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-format-conversion-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 538,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Implement an audio format conversion tool that allows users to upload audio files and select a target audio format (such as mp3, wav, ogg). After conversion is complete, the user should be able to download the file in the target format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload and format detection functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements secure file upload with proper validation, supports multiple audio formats (mp3, wav, ogg, flac, aac), includes file size limits, MIME type verification, and audio metadata extraction. Score 0 if basic upload is missing, 5 if only simple upload without validation, and 10 if comprehensive upload with security checks and format detection is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the audio format conversion engine properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the conversion system uses appropriate audio processing libraries (FFmpeg, Web Audio API, or similar), supports bidirectional conversion between major formats, maintains audio quality settings, and handles sample rate/bitrate adjustments. Deduct 5 points if conversion quality is poor, 3 points if limited format support. Full score requires robust conversion with quality preservation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is real-time conversion progress tracking and status management implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides real-time conversion progress updates, estimated time remaining, proper status indicators (queued/processing/completed/failed), and handles concurrent conversion requests efficiently. Deduct 5 points if no progress indication, 3 points if status updates are inaccurate or delayed. Requires seamless user feedback throughout the process.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the converted file download and management system complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes secure file download mechanisms, temporary file cleanup, download history tracking, and proper file naming conventions. Must handle large file downloads with resume capability and automatic cleanup of expired conversions. Deduct 5 points if no cleanup mechanism, 3 points if download security is compromised. Full implementation requires complete file lifecycle management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, unsupported formats, network interruption, conversion 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. Audio preview before/after conversion 2. Batch conversion capabilities 3. Audio quality comparison tools 4. Format recommendation based on use case 5. Cloud storage integration). 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 upload handlers coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio conversion (e.g., built-in video editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during conversion). 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 upload/conversion/download layers), unit test coverage, error handling, 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) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for upload/convert/download workflow. 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) File upload feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Conversion progress updates every 500ms or less 3) Smooth transition animations between states (300-500ms duration) 4) Clear visual focus guidance through the conversion workflow 5) Responsive drag-and-drop interactions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during file operations, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-mixing-effect-tool-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 635,
+  "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. \n\n======== Role ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are given a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code according to this requirement. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand language comments. Do not output anything else.\n\n======== Output Rules ========\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is complete and executable.\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code.\n3. Before the final output, carefully review and check all code to evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated.\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or require user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data.\n\n======== Project Requirements ========\nCreate a frontend tool for audio mixing and audio effect combination, where users can upload multiple audio files for mixing, and can add various audio effects (such as echo, noise reduction, etc.) to the mixed audio. After processing, users can preview and download the final audio.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload and management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete audio file upload system, including multiple file selection, file type validation (audio formats like MP3, WAV, OGG), file size limits, upload progress indication, and proper error handling. Check if users can manage (add/remove/reorder) uploaded audio files. Score 0 if audio upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or management features, and 10 if fully implemented with all necessary features and error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the audio mixing functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of audio mixing capabilities using the Web Audio API or similar technologies. Check whether the code includes volume adjustment for each track, timing synchronization options, mute/solo options for individual tracks, and proper gain node management. Verify that the mixing process preserves audio quality without unintended clipping or distortion. Score 0 if mixing is not implemented, 5 if basic mixing exists but lacks fine-tuning options, and 10 if comprehensive mixing with all professional features is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are audio effects properly implemented and customizable?",
+      "description": "Assess the range and quality of audio effects implemented (echo, reverb, noise reduction, compression, EQ, etc.). Check if each effect has appropriate parameters that users can adjust. Verify that effects can be applied selectively to individual tracks or to the master output. Effects should be implemented using proper audio processing nodes with real-time preview capabilities. Score 0 if no effects are implemented, 5 if only basic effects with limited customization, and 10 if a comprehensive suite of professional-grade effects with full parameter customization is available.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio preview and download functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the application provides real-time preview of the mixed audio with applied effects before downloading. Evaluate the download functionality, including proper file format options (MP3, WAV, etc.), quality settings, metadata preservation, and appropriate file naming. Verify that the final download accurately represents what was heard in the preview. Score 0 if preview/download is missing, 5 if basic functionality exists but lacks options or accuracy, and 10 if fully implemented with professional quality and options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as incompatible audio formats, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large audio files, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper exception handling around audio processing operations, which are prone to errors. 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. Audio waveform visualization 2. Spectral frequency analysis display 3. Template presets for common audio combinations 4. AI-assisted mixing suggestions). 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 functions 2. Function modules unrelated to audio mixing (e.g., a built-in video player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact audio processing performance). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core audio processing 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/state management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper use of Web Audio API best practices, memory management with large audio files, and worker threads for intensive processing. 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 audio tool design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional audio tool design principles: 1) Appropriate color schemes that reduce eye strain during long sessions (dark theme options) 2) Proper layout of controls with logical grouping (effects, track management, master controls) 3) Professional visualization components (accurate waveforms, level meters with proper dB scales). Deduct 3 points for each poorly placed control group, 5 points for inaccurate audio visualizations, and 5 points for unintuitive workflow design. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive for audio operations?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the audio processing operations meet real-time requirements: 1) Effect parameter changes reflected in audio within 100ms 2) Audio transport controls (play, pause, seek) respond immediately 3) Smooth waveform scrolling during playback. Additionally, check if audio processing is handled in a separate thread to prevent UI freezing during intensive operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation with noticeable lag, 3 points for audible glitches during parameter changes, and 5 points for UI freezing during processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-pitch-shifter-with-preview-export.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 678,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable and demonstrable.\n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easily understood comments. Don't output anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete and runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot execute or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or using user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDesign an audio pitch shifter where users can upload audio files, select pitch shift options (such as raising by an octave, lowering by an octave, etc.), and preview the pitch shift effect in real-time. After editing is complete, users can export the pitch-shifted audio file.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes proper file input handling for audio files (mp3, wav, etc.), validation of file types, error handling for corrupted files, and feedback during upload process. The implementation should handle different audio formats and include proper UI feedback during the upload process.0 points if no upload functionality exists, 5 points for basic file selection without validation, 10 points for complete implementation with file type validation, progress indicators, and error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the pitch shifting core algorithm correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the pitch shifting algorithm preserves audio quality while changing pitch. Check for implementation of time-domain or frequency-domain processing (such as phase vocoder, PSOLA, or similar algorithms). The implementation should handle various pitch shifts without introducing significant artifacts.0 points if no pitch shifting is implemented, 5 points for basic implementation with noticeable quality loss, 10 points for professional-grade algorithm with minimal artifacts even at extreme pitch shifts.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the pitch shift options comprehensive and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Review the range of available pitch shift options (octave up/down, semitone adjustments, custom ratio). Check if the UI includes intuitive controls like sliders or preset buttons for common shifts. Options should be presented in musical terminology where appropriate.0 points if only fixed options exist, 5 points for basic semitone/octave controls, 10 points for comprehensive options with both musical intervals and precise numeric values with visual feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is real-time preview functionality implemented effectively?",
+      "description": "Check whether users can preview the pitch-shifted audio in real-time, with minimal latency between adjustment and playback. Verify if preview includes waveform visualization that updates with pitch changes. The system should have buffer management to ensure smooth playback.0 points if no preview exists, 5 points for basic preview with noticeable delay, 10 points for immediate responsive preview with visual waveform changes and proper playhead tracking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles edge cases such as very large files, unsupported formats, browser compatibility issues, and memory management during processing. Error handling should be comprehensive with user-friendly messages.0 points if no exception handling exists, 5 points for basic error catching, 10 points for comprehensive error prevention, detection, and recovery with helpful user feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check for additional useful features beyond basic requirements (e.g., formant preservation, multi-track support, batch processing, harmonization effects, or real-time spectral 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 for unnecessary code complexities, duplicate audio processing routines, or flashy UI elements that impair performance without adding value to the core pitch shifting functionality.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 the separation of concerns (audio processing logic, UI components, file operations), proper use of Web Audio API, memory management for large audio files, and browser compatibility considerations.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.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the audio editor interface for clarity, accessibility, and professional appearance. Check for appropriate visualization of audio (waveforms, spectrograms) that update with pitch changes, consistent control styling, and proper spacing of UI elements.Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic audio control layout.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the pitch adjustment controls respond immediately, if audio playback starts/stops without delay, and if the export process provides appropriate progress indication. Check for smooth waveform scrolling during playback and responsive UI even during processing.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for audio glitches during adjustment, and 5 points for export functionality that freezes the UI.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-recording-basic-editing.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 675,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Develop a frontend project for audio recording and basic editing, where users can use the browser's recording function to record audio, perform simple editing operations such as trimming and adding sound effects after recording, and finally save and download the edited audio.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio recording functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements the MediaRecorder API with appropriate error handling. Check for microphone access permission management, recording state indicators, and audio format support (WAV/MP3). Score 0 if recording functionality is missing, 5 if basic recording works but lacks proper state management, and 10 if recording handles all edge cases including permission denial and device switching.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the basic audio editing features implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of core editing features: trimming/cutting functionality, volume adjustment, and basic sound effects (e.g., echo, reverb). Verify that the Web Audio API is properly utilized with appropriate visualizations of edits. Score 3 points for each well-implemented editing feature. Deduct points if the implementation is buggy or has poor UX (e.g., difficult to identify trim points or unclear effect application).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the audio visualization component properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if waveform visualization is implemented using Canvas/WebGL or SVG with proper time scaling. Verify that the visualization updates in real-time during recording and accurately reflects editing operations. Assess responsiveness for different audio durations. Score 0 if visualization is missing, 5 if basic static visualization exists, and 10 if the visualization is interactive, allowing selection of audio segments and showing editing effects.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio saving and downloading functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Review the export functionality for different audio formats (at minimum WAV/MP3), proper file naming, metadata handling, and download implementation using Blob objects and download attributes. Verify the exported file quality and check if the implementation handles large files appropriately. Score 0 if export is missing, 5 if basic export works with limitations, and 10 if export handles multiple formats with proper metadata.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser compatibility issues, microphone disconnection during recording, aborted downloads, memory constraints with large files, 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. Noise reduction capabilities 2. Voice-to-text transcription 3. Audio filters with preview 4. Multi-track mixing 5. Keyboard shortcuts for editing). 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 pipelines) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio recording/editing (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Performance-heavy features that affect core functionality (e.g., excessive visual effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing logic/UI components/storage handling), error handling strategies, memory management (especially for large audio files), and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization strategies are implemented for audio processing. 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 audio app design principles: 1) Clear recording controls with proper state indication 2) Intuitive editing interface with visual feedback 3) Consistent spacing and alignment of controls 4) Professional color scheme for audio visualizations. Deduct 3 points for confusing recording state indicators, 5 points for cluttered editing controls, and 5 points for poor contrast that affects usability. 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 audio editing expectations: 1) Immediate feedback when recording starts/stops 2) Smooth waveform scrolling during long recordings 3) Responsive editing operations with visual confirmation 4) Progress indicators for processing operations. Deduct 5 points for laggy waveform rendering, 3 points for delayed response to editing actions, and 5 points for missing progress indicators during audio processing operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-segmentation-labeling-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 615,
+  "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. Design an audio segmentation labeling tool where users can upload audio, add labels to different time segments, and export a file containing the time segment information.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio upload and playback system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements audio file upload functionality through HTML5 File API, supports multiple audio formats (MP3, WAV, OGG), and includes proper audio playback controls with accurate time tracking. Score 0 if basic audio handling is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload/play is working, and 10 if full audio manipulation with precise timeline control is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the time segment labeling functionality correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the interface allows users to select time ranges on the audio timeline, create labels for segments, edit existing labels, and delete unwanted segments. The implementation should include visual feedback for segment selection and proper validation of time boundaries. Deduct 5 points if segment overlap handling is missing, and 3 points if label editing functionality is incomplete. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the timeline visualization and interaction design professional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the audio timeline uses proper waveform visualization or time ruler display, allows precise time selection through mouse/touch interactions, and provides zoom in/out functionality for detailed editing. Visual indicators should clearly show current playback position, selected segments, and labeled regions. Deduct 5 points if waveform rendering is missing or poorly implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the export functionality complete with proper data structure?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete export functionality that generates files containing segment information (start time, end time, labels) in standard formats (JSON, CSV, or XML). The export should include metadata like audio filename, total duration, and creation timestamp. Deduct 5 points if data validation before export is missing, and 3 points if multiple export formats are not supported. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper data integrity checks.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported audio formats, corrupted files, invalid time ranges, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Automatic silence detection for segment suggestions 2. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient labeling 3. Real-time waveform analysis 4. Batch labeling operations 5. Audio speed adjustment for detailed review). 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 loading mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio labeling (e.g., built-in audio effects or filters) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex 3D visualizations). 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 export layers), error handling coverage, and code organization. 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 proper separation of concerns is not implemented. 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 with clear visual hierarchy 2) Proper layout spacing with adequate whitespace 3) Professional typography with readable font sizes (≥ 14px) 4) Intuitive iconography for audio controls. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor contrast ratios affecting readability, and 5 points for inconsistent visual styling. 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) Audio playback response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Timeline scrubbing is smooth without audio glitches 3) Segment selection provides immediate visual feedback 4) Hover states and active states are clearly indicated. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for audio playback stuttering during timeline manipulation, and 5 points for unclear interactive elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-trimming-labeling-frontend-program.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 470,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code when possible. Develop a frontend program for audio trimming and labeling, where users can upload audio, trim specific time segments, add text labels to the trimmed audio, and finally save the audio file with the label information.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio uploading and playback functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete audio file upload mechanism with format validation (.mp3, .wav, etc.) and proper error handling for unsupported formats. Verify that the audio playback controls include play/pause, volume control, and a working progress display. Score 0 if audio upload/playback is missing, 5 if basic functionality works but lacks format validation or error handling, and 10 if fully implemented with comprehensive format support and robust error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the audio trimming functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the trimming interface allows precise selection of start and end points with visual feedback (e.g., highlighted regions, time markers). Check if the waveform visualization is implemented to aid in precise trimming. Score 0 if trimming functionality is absent, 5 if basic trimming works but lacks precision controls or visual feedback, and 10 if the implementation includes fine-grained time controls (at least millisecond precision) with visual waveform representation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the audio labeling system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a labeling system that allows adding, editing, and deleting text labels for trimmed segments. Check if labels are properly associated with specific time ranges and if multiple labels can be added to different segments. Score 0 if labeling functionality is missing, 5 if basic labeling exists but lacks editing capabilities or proper time association, and 10 if the implementation includes a complete label management system with metadata support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the saving and exporting functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code provides functionality to save trimmed audio segments along with their associated labels. Check if the export format preserves both audio quality and label information (e.g., JSON metadata, embedded ID3 tags for MP3). Score 0 if export functionality is missing, 5 if basic export works but doesn't preserve labels properly, and 10 if the implementation includes multiple export options with preserved metadata and batch export capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupt audio files, 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-assisted auto-labeling 2. Voice-to-text transcription integration 3. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient editing 4. Label categorization with color coding). 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 loaded) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio editing (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the interface). 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 components/data management), 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) Audio processing operations respond within 200ms 2) Waveform rendering is smooth even with longer audio files 3) Clear visual feedback when applying labels or trimming operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy waveform displays during scrolling/zooming, and 5 points for unintuitive label interaction. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}