@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-trimming-tagging-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 595,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Implement a front-end page for audio trimming and tagging, where users can upload audio files, perform trimming operations, add tags to the trimmed audio segments, preview and download audio with tag information.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio upload functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete audio file upload mechanism that supports common audio formats (MP3, WAV, AAC, etc.), validates file sizes (limiting to reasonable sizes like 50MB), and provides proper user feedback during the upload process. Deduct 5 points if format validation is missing, 3 points if error handling for corrupt files is absent, and 2 points if upload progress indication is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the audio waveform visualization and playback system fully functional?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly renders an interactive audio waveform visualization using Canvas/WebAudio API that accurately represents the audio data, allows for playback control (play/pause/stop), and includes visual indicators for the current playback position. Score 0 if visualization is missing, 5 points if basic waveform is displayed without interactive features, and 10 points if the visualization is fully interactive with accurate representation of the audio amplitude.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the audio trimming functionality complete and accurate?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the trimming interface allows precise selection of start and end points with visual markers/handles, provides real-time preview of the selected segment, and includes zooming capabilities for fine-grained control. Deduct 5 points if trimming is imprecise (lacking millisecond accuracy), 3 points if zooming functionality is missing, and 2 points if visual indicators for trim points are unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the tagging system comprehensive and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the tagging system allows users to add, edit, and delete tags for audio segments with proper metadata (tag name, timestamp, descriptions), supports categorization of tags, and provides a visual representation of tags on the waveform timeline. Deduct 3 points if tag editing is limited, 4 points if visual representation on the timeline is missing, and 3 points if tag search/filtering capabilities 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 audio formats, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large files, network interruptions during upload/download) 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-tagging 2. Voice activity detection for automatic segment identification 3. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient editing 4. Audio effects/filters for enhanced playback). 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 for the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio editing (e.g., excessive social sharing options) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the audio processing). 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/state 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 scrubbing responds within 100ms 2) Waveform zooming/panning animations are fluid (60fps) 3) Clear visual feedback when adding/editing tags. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy waveform rendering during interaction, and 5 points if important audio controls are difficult to locate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-watermark-creator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 609,
+  "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 for demonstration. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I am providing you with a software development requirement description and asking you to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and understandable comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot run or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDesign a frontend audio watermark creator where users can upload audio files and watermark audio files (or text watermark information). The interface should provide options for watermark placement (beginning, middle, end, etc.) and volume adjustment. After setting these options, users should be able to save the watermarked audio to their local device.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload and processing system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements audio file upload functionality through HTML/JavaScript, including file format validation (MP3, WAV, etc.), file size limits, and proper audio parsing using Web Audio API. Check if audio visualization (waveform display) is provided for user feedback. Score 0 if basic upload is not implemented, 5 if only basic file handling exists without audio processing, and 10 if complete audio upload with validation and visualization is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the watermark insertion functionality comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code supports both audio watermark and text-to-speech watermark insertion. Check if multiple placement options (beginning, middle, end, custom position) are available with precise timing controls. Verify if volume adjustment for watermarks is implemented with real-time preview. Deduct 5 points if only one watermark type is supported, 3 points if position control is imprecise, and 2 points if volume adjustment lacks real-time feedback. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the audio processing and mixing engine properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the Web Audio API implementation includes proper audio buffer management, sample rate handling, and channel mixing capabilities. Evaluate if the audio processing maintains original quality while adding watermarks. Verify if the system handles different audio formats and bit rates correctly. Deduct 5 points if audio quality degrades significantly, 3 points if mixing causes distortion, and 2 points if format compatibility issues exist. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio export and download functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code provides multiple export formats (MP3, WAV, etc.) with quality options. Check if the download mechanism works across different browsers and handles large file sizes efficiently. Verify if metadata preservation and file naming conventions are implemented. Deduct 5 points if only one export format is available, 3 points if download fails on large files, and 2 points if metadata is lost during export. Give 10 points if fully implemented with multiple format support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, memory overflow with large audio files, browser compatibility issues, corrupted audio data, 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 waveform visualization during editing 2. Batch watermarking for multiple files 3. Watermark fade-in/fade-out effects 4. Audio preview with A/B comparison 5. Custom watermark voice synthesis). 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 coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio watermarking (e.g., built-in music player or audio editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex 3D visualizations that slow down processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core watermarking 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), error handling coverage, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or audio processing is not properly encapsulated; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if audio memory management is poor (memory leaks). 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 suitable for audio editing (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear audio controls grouping 3) Professional typography (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Intuitive audio timeline and waveform display. Deduct 3 points for each crowded control element, 5 points for poor contrast in waveform visualization, and 5 points for chaotic control layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the audio interface interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Audio playback controls respond within 100ms 2) Smooth waveform scrubbing and timeline navigation 3) Real-time preview of watermark placement without lag 4) Clear visual feedback for processing states (loading, processing, complete). Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive audio control, 3 points for choppy timeline interaction, and 5 points for missing processing state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/flutter-android-call-recording-feature.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 333,
+  "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 for demonstration. Please write a call recording feature for Android phones using Flutter.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the call recording core functionality correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly handles the essential call recording functionality using Flutter plugins like phone_state/call_log and audio recording capabilities. Check if it properly detects call states (incoming, outgoing, ongoing) and triggers recording at the right moments. Score 0 if core functionality is missing, 5 if basic recording works but has gaps, and 10 if it handles all call scenarios correctly.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the necessary permissions properly requested and handled?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code correctly requests and handles all required Android permissions (READ_PHONE_STATE, RECORD_AUDIO, READ_CALL_LOG, WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE). Check for runtime permission handling with proper user prompts and graceful fallbacks when permissions are denied. Deduct 3 points for each missing permission implementation and 5 points if there's no runtime permission handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the recording storage and file management properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper file naming conventions, organized storage structure, and file management capabilities (listing, playing, deleting recordings). Check if recordings are stored with metadata (caller name/number, date, duration). Deduct 5 points if recordings aren't properly organized, and 3 points if metadata is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the call notification and background service implementation appropriate?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a foreground service for recording calls in the background with appropriate notifications. Verify if it handles various Android versions properly (especially Android 8+ with background limitations). Deduct 5 points if there's no foreground service, and 5 points if notifications are missing or improperly implemented. 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 sudden call termination, storage issues, permission changes at runtime, 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 call transcription 2. Voice-to-text for recorded calls 3. Caller categorization or tagging system 4. Cloud backup 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 ways to record calls) 2. Function modules unrelated to call recording (e.g., a built-in music player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 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 UI/business logic/storage layers), state management approaches, and code reusability. 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 no unit tests are included. 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 Material Design or Cupertino 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 stuttering during animations, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/frontend-audio-denoising-application.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 674,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the code you provide executable for demonstration. Develop a frontend audio denoising application where users can upload audio files containing noise, click on a denoising button to process the audio, then listen to and download the noise-reduced audio after processing is complete.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete audio file upload system with proper file type validation (accepting common audio formats like MP3, WAV, OGG), file size restrictions, and clear user feedback during upload. The upload component should handle errors gracefully and provide visual confirmation when files are successfully uploaded. Deduct 5 points if only certain formats are supported, 3 points if there's no size validation, and 5 points if error handling is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the audio denoising processing functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes an actual audio denoising algorithm (using Web Audio API, audio processing libraries, or WebAssembly implementations) rather than just simulating the process. Check if the implementation includes configurable denoising parameters (noise threshold, sensitivity, etc.) and provides visual feedback during processing. Score 0 if only simulated, 5 if basic algorithm without customization, and 10 if a comprehensive solution with configurable parameters is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the audio playback functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code provides comparative playback between original and processed audio, with standard audio controls (play/pause, volume, progress bar, time display). The interface should allow A/B testing between original and processed versions. Deduct 3 points if seeking functionality is missing, 3 points if volume control is absent, and 5 points if comparative listening isn't possible. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the processed audio download functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code correctly implements downloading of the processed audio file with appropriate format options (WAV, MP3, etc.), proper filename handling, and metadata preservation. The download should work across different browsers and include error handling. Deduct 3 points if only one format is supported, 5 points if metadata is stripped, and 3 points if browser compatibility issues exist. 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, corrupted audio files, processing timeouts, 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. Real-time visualization of audio waveform and noise reduction 2. Multiple denoising algorithms to choose from 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 engines) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio denoising (e.g., unnecessary image editing tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down audio processing). 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 UI/audio processing/storage 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 feedback during audio processing. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for lack of progress indicators during 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": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/html-cake-player-happy-birthday-song-waveform-visualization.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 430,
+  "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. Use HTML to create a cake player that can play the Happy Birthday song with waveform visualization.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the cake-themed audio player visually implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the HTML includes an actual visual representation of a cake (not just a plain audio player). The cake should have appropriate styling with CSS to look like a birthday cake (with layers, frosting, candles, etc.). Score 0 if there's no cake visualization, 5 if there's a basic cake design, and 10 if the cake is detailed and visually appealing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Happy Birthday song playback functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify that the player can actually play the Happy Birthday song. Check if the code includes the audio file or generates the notes programmatically. The player must have basic controls (play/pause at minimum). Deduct 5 points if the song is incomplete, 3 points if the audio controls are missing, and 5 points if there are no error handlers for audio loading issues.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the waveform visualization accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the code properly implements audio visualization using Web Audio API (AudioContext, AnalyserNode) and either Canvas or SVG to draw the waveform. The visualization should synchronize with the actual audio playback. Give 0 points if visualization is missing, 5 points if basic visualization exists but isn't synchronized well, and 10 points if the waveform accurately represents the audio in real-time.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are there interactive elements incorporated into the cake player?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes interactive elements like clickable candles that affect the music, draggable audio controls on the cake, or animations that respond to user interaction. Deduct 5 points if there's no interaction beyond basic play/pause, and 3 points if the interactions aren't intuitive or cake-themed.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser incompatibilities, audio loading errors, user interruptions, 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. Candles that light up with the beat 2. Responsive cake that changes with music intensity 3. Visual effects synchronized to specific birthday song phrases). 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 visualization methods 2. Function modules unrelated to the cake player or birthday theme 3. Fancy effects that affect audio performance or visualization clarity. 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/visualization/UI components), code reusability, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no performance consideration for the visualization (e.g., excessive DOM updates). 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 suitable for a birthday theme (festive but not garish) 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 cake-to-control layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the waveform animation and cake interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Audio response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth visualization with no frame drops at 60fps 3) Clear visual feedback when interacting with the cake elements. Deduct 5 points for jerky waveform animation, 3 points for delayed audio response, and 5 points for confusing interaction feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/in-browser-multi-track-recording-studio.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 580,
+  "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 when possible. Implement an in-browser recording studio that supports multi-track recording (at least 3 tracks). Each track should provide real-time monitoring during recording, include a metronome function (with adjustable BPM and time signature), allow waveform alignment editing after recording, and support exporting individual track files.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the multi-track recording functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements Web Audio API with MediaRecorder to handle at least 3 simultaneous recording tracks. Check if each track has independent recording controls (record/stop/pause), proper audio input selection, and correct audio buffering. Score 0 if multi-track recording is not implemented, 5 if only basic recording works but tracks interfere with each other, and 10 if all tracks can be independently recorded with proper isolation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is real-time monitoring implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of real-time audio monitoring during recording. Check for proper audio routing using AudioNodes, minimal latency (under 50ms), and volume control for monitoring. Verify that the monitoring doesn't create feedback loops and can be toggled on/off per track. Deduct 5 points if monitoring has noticeable delays, 3 points if volume control is missing, and 5 points if monitoring creates audio artifacts.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the metronome function complete and accurate?",
+      "description": "Check if the metronome uses proper timing mechanisms (like AudioContext.currentTime for precision) instead of setTimeout/setInterval. Verify that BPM adjustment (range at least 40-240) works correctly and time signature changes (at least 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 6/8) are properly implemented with accent beats. Deduct 5 points if timing drifts after 60 seconds, 3 points if time signatures are limited, and 5 points if visual metronome indication is missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the waveform visualization and editing functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the waveform rendering using Canvas/WebGL (not just static images), zoom functionality, and alignment editing capabilities. Verify that recorded tracks can be moved in time relative to each other with millisecond precision, and that the visualization updates in real-time. Deduct 5 points if waveforms aren't interactive, 3 points if zoom functionality is missing, and 5 points if alignment editing doesn't maintain audio quality.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as microphone permission denials, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations when recording long sessions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle browser audio API differences between Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
+      "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 effects processing 2. Automatic silence detection/trimming 3. Beat detection for auto-alignment 4. Keyboard shortcuts for common operations). 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 recording (e.g., a built-in video player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that consume CPU needed for audio processing). 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/storage layers), unit test coverage for critical audio functions, and proper memory management for audio buffers. Deduct 5 points if global audio context pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if audio processing creates memory leaks when recording long sessions; deduct 5 points if the code doesn't handle browser-specific audio implementations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional recording studio standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional DAW principles: 1) Clear track separation with visual color coding 2) Proper signal level meters with peak indicators 3) Professional timeline with proper time markings (bars/beats and time). Deduct 3 points for each missing standard control (mute/solo buttons), 5 points for unintuitive track layouts, and 5 points for unclear recording status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the export functionality complete and professional?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the export function supports standard audio formats (WAV at minimum, ideally MP3, OGG too), allows individual track exports as well as mixed output, and provides file naming and metadata options. Verify that exported files maintain original audio quality. Deduct 5 points if only one export format is supported, 3 points if individual track export is missing, and 5 points if the export process blocks the UI thread or doesn't show progress. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/karaoke-lyrics-synchronization-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 642,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create a Karaoke lyrics synchronization tool where users can upload audio files and LRC lyrics files to achieve synchronized display of lyrics with the audio timeline (with word-by-word highlighting). The tool should support adjusting lyrics timing offset and exporting the modified LRC files.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload and audio playback functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements file uploading for both audio and LRC files with proper MIME type validation. Check if the audio player includes essential controls (play, pause, seek) and event listeners. Score 0 if file upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload without validation exists, and 10 if complete with error handling and format support for multiple audio formats (MP3, WAV, OGG).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the LRC file parsing and timeline synchronization accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly parses LRC file format (both standard timestamps and enhanced format with word timing). Verify that the synchronization mechanism matches lyrics to the current audio timestamp with precision (should be within 50ms accuracy). Deduct 5 points if only line-level synchronization is implemented, not word-level highlighting. Deduct 3 points if the parser doesn't handle special formats or extended LRC tags.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the lyrics timing offset adjustment feature properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the tool provides an interface for users to adjust the timing offset of lyrics (both globally and for specific lines if needed). Evaluate whether the offset changes are applied in real-time to the displayed lyrics without requiring a page reload. Deduct 5 points if only global offset is available without fine-tuning capabilities, and 3 points if adjustments don't show immediate visual feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the modified LRC file export functionality working correctly?",
+      "description": "Verify that users can export the adjusted LRC file with all timing modifications properly saved. Check if the exported file maintains the original format while incorporating the timing changes. The export should include a download option with the proper file extension and MIME type. Deduct 5 points if the export doesn't preserve all metadata from the original LRC file, and 3 points if the download mechanism isn't user-friendly.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as malformed LRC files, audio format incompatibility, browser API limitations, 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. Waveform visualization of audio 2. Auto-scrolling with smooth animation 3. Multiple theme options for lyrics display 4. Batch processing of multiple files). 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 timing calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to lyrics synchronization (e.g., a built-in music equalizer) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations for lyrics transitions). 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 handling/lyrics processing/UI components), 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 (lyrics font size ≥ 16px, 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) Current lyric highlighting transition ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth scrolling animation for lyrics advancement 3) Clear visual indication of active line and upcoming lyrics. Deduct 5 points for jerky lyrics transitions, 3 points for lagging synchronization between audio and lyrics, and 5 points for unintuitive UI controls for timing adjustment. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/music-generation-tool-with-free-ai-inference.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1133,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable whenever possible. Provide runnable code for implementing this music generation tool, using freely available tools for the AI inference part.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the music generation AI system architecture properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes a well-structured system architecture that integrates AI models for music generation. Check if the architecture includes data preprocessing, model loading, inference pipeline, and output processing components. Score 0 if no AI architecture is present, 5 if basic components exist but lack integration, and 10 if the architecture is comprehensive with clear data flow between components.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the AI model integration with freely available tools properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code correctly integrates with freely available AI music generation libraries/tools (e.g., Magenta, DDSP, AudioCraft, etc.). Verify API usage correctness, proper error handling for API calls, and appropriate model parameter management. Deduct 5 points if integration is superficial without proper error handling, and 3 points if parameter tuning options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are music generation parameters and controls fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code provides comprehensive controls for music generation parameters (tempo, key, style, instruments, length, etc.). Check if these parameters have appropriate validation and reasonable defaults. Deduct 3 points for each major missing control (tempo/key/style), and 2 points if parameter bounds checking is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio processing and output functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Examine the audio processing pipeline, including audio format conversion, mixing, playback mechanisms, and export functionality (MIDI, WAV, MP3). Check if the code handles different sample rates and bit depths correctly. Deduct 3 points for missing export formats, 5 points for inadequate audio playback, and 5 points if audio processing has potential memory leaks or performance issues. 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 model loading failures, memory constraints, malformed input parameters, 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 visualization of music generation 2. Style transfer between music pieces 3. Interactive parameter adjustment during generation). 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 conversion pipelines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to music generation (e.g., unnecessary image processing) 3. Resource-intensive features that affect performance (e.g., excessive logging, unnecessary real-time processing). 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 AI inference/audio processing/UI 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 feedback during lengthy generation processes. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for UI freezing during model inference, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}