@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/network-audio-sampler-drum-kit.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 475,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Develop a network audio sampler that supports loading multiple drum kit sound samples (in WAV format), triggering playback through a virtual MIDI keyboard or computer keyboard, with adjustable volume, pan, and playback rate for each sample.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio sample loading and management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements WAV file loading through Web Audio API, includes proper audio buffer management, and supports multiple drum kit samples with preloading mechanisms. Check if sample metadata (duration, sample rate, channels) is correctly parsed and displayed. Score 0 if basic audio loading fails, 5 if only single sample loading works, and 10 if multiple drum kits with batch loading and error handling are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the dual input system (virtual MIDI keyboard + computer keyboard) properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether both virtual MIDI keyboard interface and computer keyboard mapping are functional with proper event handling. Check for MIDI device detection, key velocity sensitivity, and keyboard layout mapping (QWERTY to drum pads). Deduct 5 points if MIDI input is missing, 3 points if keyboard events have conflicts or delays. Virtual keyboard should provide visual feedback on key press. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the real-time audio parameter controls (volume, pan, playback rate) accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether each sample has independent volume control (0-100%), stereo panning (-100% to +100%), and playback rate adjustment (0.5x to 2.0x) with real-time audio processing. Verify that parameter changes are reflected immediately without audio glitches. Deduct 5 points if any parameter control is missing, 3 points if audio artifacts occur during parameter changes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio engine architecture and performance optimization properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the Web Audio API implementation uses proper audio context management, buffer pooling for simultaneous playback, and low-latency audio processing. Check for polyphonic playback support (multiple samples playing simultaneously) and proper audio node connections. Deduct 5 points if audio latency exceeds 50ms, 3 points if polyphonic playback causes performance issues, 5 points if audio context is not properly managed. 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, MIDI device disconnection, audio context suspension, file loading 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. Real-time waveform visualization 2. Recording and export functionality 3. Built-in metronome with tempo sync 4. Sample reverse/loop modes 5. Audio effects like reverb/delay). 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 methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio sampling (e.g., built-in video player) 3. Fancy effects that affect audio performance (e.g., heavy 3D visualizations blocking audio thread). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the 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 engine/UI/MIDI layers), proper error handling, and build process organization. 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 audio resources are not properly cleaned up. 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) Clear visual hierarchy for mixer-style controls 2) Consistent knob/fader designs with proper scaling 3) High contrast for better studio visibility (dark theme preferred) 4) Drum pad layout following standard drum kit positioning. Deduct 3 points for each unclear control element, 5 points for unprofessional color schemes, and 5 points for confusing control layouts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the audio-visual feedback smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactive feedback meets professional audio standards: 1) Visual trigger response ≤ 20ms for drum pad hits 2) Audio latency ≤ 50ms from input to output 3) Smooth parameter control updates without visual stuttering 4) Clear visual indicators for active samples and parameter states. Deduct 5 points for each delayed audio response, 3 points for laggy visual feedback, and 5 points for unclear audio status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/online-audio-concatenation-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 592,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable and demonstrable. Design an online audio concatenation tool that supports uploading multiple audio clips, allows users to freely adjust the order of audio concatenation in the interface, and export the synthesized audio.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "1. Is the audio upload and format handling system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements multi-file audio upload through HTML5 File API, and whether it includes support for common audio formats (MP3, WAV, AAC, OGG). Check if audio format validation, file size limits, and format conversion capabilities are included. Score 0 if core upload functionality is not implemented, 5 if only basic single-file upload is supported, and 10 if multi-format batch upload with validation is fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "2. Is the audio concatenation engine and processing logic implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the Web Audio API or similar technology is properly implemented for audio concatenation, including audio buffer management, seamless audio stitching, and real-time preview capabilities. Evaluate if the concatenation maintains audio quality without distortion. Deduct 5 points if audio gaps or clicks are present during concatenation, and 3 points if real-time preview is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "3. Is the drag-and-drop interface for audio sequence management designed and functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the interface provides intuitive drag-and-drop functionality for reordering audio clips, including visual feedback during dragging, drop zone indicators, and smooth animation transitions. Check if the interface displays audio waveforms, duration, and file names clearly. Deduct 5 points if drag-and-drop is non-functional or clunky, and 3 points if visual feedback is poor. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "4. Is the audio export and download functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete audio export capabilities with multiple format options (MP3, WAV), quality settings, and proper file naming. Evaluate if the export process includes progress indicators and handles large file exports efficiently. Deduct 5 points if export functionality is missing or limited to one format, and 3 points if no progress feedback is provided during export. Give 10 points if fully implemented with multiple format support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "5. 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 file size limits, audio processing errors, and graceful degradation. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic error handling, and 0 points if no exceptions are handled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "6. 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 waveform visualization during editing 2. Audio fade-in/fade-out effects between clips 3. Batch processing with templates 4. Audio normalization and volume adjustment 5. Keyboard shortcuts for power users). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "7. 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 processing (e.g., built-in video editor) 3. Heavy effects that impact audio processing performance (e.g., complex 3D visualizations). 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": "8. Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing/UI/file handling layers), error handling patterns, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper separation of concerns is missing; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if no proper audio cleanup/disposal is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "9. 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 track separation 3) Professional typography with readable labels and controls 4) Intuitive iconography for audio functions. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor color contrast affecting usability, and 5 points for confusing layout of audio controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "10. Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to audio editing workflow expectations: 1) Drag-and-drop response time ≤ 100ms 2) Audio preview starts within 200ms of user action 3) Smooth waveform rendering without stuttering 4) Clear visual feedback for all audio operations 5) Responsive progress indicators during processing. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for delayed audio feedback, and 5 points for unresponsive UI during audio processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/online-audio-loop-editing-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 502,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional replies. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. ======== 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, easy-to-understand comments. Don't output anything else.\n\n======== Output Rules ========\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Before final output, carefully review and check all code to evaluate 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 mock data\n\n======== Project Requirements ========\nImplement an online audio loop editing tool where users can upload audio files, select start and end points, set the selected portion as a loop segment, and export it as a new file.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements a complete audio file upload mechanism including: file type validation (must support at least MP3, WAV, OGG formats), file size limitations with appropriate user feedback, and proper error handling for upload failures. Examine if the uploaded files are properly stored (either temporarily or persistently) and if the interface provides clear visual feedback during the upload process.0 points if upload functionality is missing, 5 points if basic upload exists but lacks validation or feedback, 10 points if upload functionality is complete with all necessary validations and user feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the audio playback and visualization system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a functional audio player component with standard controls (play/pause, volume) and a waveform visualization that accurately represents the uploaded audio. The waveform should be properly scaled and render correctly for different audio durations. Check if the playback position is visually indicated on the waveform and if the system handles different audio formats consistently.0 points if playback or visualization is missing, 5 points if basic playback exists but visualization is inadequate, 10 points for complete implementation with responsive waveform visualization that accurately represents the audio data.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the loop selection functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether users can intuitively select start and end points for loops either through visual markers on the waveform or through timestamp inputs. Check if the selection mechanism includes features like draggable handles, snap-to-beat functionality, or precise time input fields. Verify that the selected loop region is visually highlighted and that the system prevents invalid selections (end before start).0 points if loop selection is missing, 5 points if basic selection exists but lacks precision controls, 10 points for comprehensive selection tools with multiple input methods and validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the loop playback and export functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the system can properly play the selected loop segment repeatedly with smooth transitions between iterations. Check if the export functionality allows users to save the loop as a new audio file in common formats (MP3, WAV). Verify if export options like quality settings, fade in/out options, or normalization are available and if the system provides progress feedback during export processing.0 points if loop playback or export is missing, 5 points if basic functionality exists but lacks options or smooth transitions, 10 points for seamless loop playback and comprehensive export options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, browser compatibility issues, memory constraints with large files) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if the application implements proper exception handling for audio processing operations and if it degrades gracefully when features are unsupported.0 points if no exception handling exists, 5 points if basic error handling is implemented but lacks comprehensive coverage, 10 points if robust error handling with user-friendly recovery mechanisms is provided throughout.",
+      "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. Beat detection for automatic loop suggestions 2. Audio effects library for loop processing 3. Loop library management system 4. Keyboard shortcuts for precise editing). Consider both technical innovation and user experience improvements.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 loop editing (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Excessive visual effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations that slow down the audio processing). Evaluate if the core functionality is obscured by unnecessary features.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/file management), appropriate use of design patterns for audio handling, and code organization. Check for proper handling of memory-intensive audio operations, browser performance considerations, and adherence to web audio best practices.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 audio processing is inefficient or causes browser performance issues. 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 tool design principles: 1) Intuitive waveform visualization with clear color contrast 2) Proper layout of controls with logical grouping of related functions 3) Professional typography system with adequate contrast for readability. Check if the interface resembles industry-standard audio editing tools in terms of usability.Deduct 3 points for each poorly designed UI element, 5 points for confusing audio visualization, and 5 points for unintuitive control placement. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the audio editing interactions conform to expected behavior: 1) Real-time audio playback response when adjusting parameters 2) Smooth waveform zooming and scrolling 3) Responsive selection markers with appropriate visual feedback. Check if there are any audio glitches during playback or processing operations.Deduct 5 points for any audio playback delays exceeding 200ms, 3 points for jerky waveform navigation, and 5 points for unresponsive selection tools. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/python-kivy-streaming-media-player.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 945,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Using Python and the Kivy framework, write a streaming media player.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the media playback core functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements media file loading, playback control (play/pause/stop), seek functionality, and volume control through Python/Kivy. Must include support for common media formats (MP4, MP3, AVI, etc.) and proper error handling for unsupported formats. Score 0 if core playback is not implemented, 5 if only basic play/pause works, and 10 if all standard media controls are fully functional with format validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the streaming media handling properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes proper streaming protocols (HTTP, RTSP, HLS) support, buffering mechanisms, and adaptive bitrate handling. Must handle network interruptions gracefully with buffer status indicators. Deduct 5 points if no buffering strategy is implemented, 3 points if stream reconnection fails, and 5 points if no adaptive quality control exists. Full score requires seamless streaming with buffer management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the playlist and queue management system designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the player includes playlist creation, file queue management, shuffle/repeat modes, and next/previous track navigation. Should support drag-and-drop reordering and persistent playlist storage. Deduct 5 points if no playlist functionality exists, 3 points if queue operations are buggy, and 2 points if no persistence mechanism is provided. Full implementation requires complete playlist ecosystem.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are media metadata and visualization features constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes media metadata extraction (title, artist, duration, thumbnails), progress bar with timestamp display, and audio visualization elements. Must show current playback position with seekable timeline. Deduct 5 points if no metadata display exists, 3 points if progress tracking is inaccurate, and 2 points if no visual feedback for media information is provided. Full score requires rich media information display.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted media files, network timeouts, unsupported codecs, file permission errors, 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 spectrum analyzer 2. Custom equalizer with presets 3. Picture-in-picture mode 4. Subtitle support with multiple languages 5. Casting/AirPlay functionality). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple volume control mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to media playback (e.g., built-in games or calculators) 3. Performance-heavy effects that don't add value (e.g., excessive animations during video playback). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core media 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 media engine/UI/network layers), proper Kivy widget usage, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or MVC pattern is not followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if Kivy best practices are ignored (improper widget lifecycle management). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional media player design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern media player principles: 1) Dark theme compatibility for video viewing 2) Intuitive control layout with proper spacing (minimum 44px touch targets) 3) Clear visual hierarchy for media information display 4) Responsive design for different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each poorly positioned control element, 5 points for illegible text on video backgrounds, and 5 points for cluttered interface layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the media control interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the media controls provide immediate feedback: 1) Play/pause response ≤ 200ms 2) Seek operations reflect immediately in timeline 3) Volume changes provide audio feedback 4) Loading states are clearly indicated 5) Touch gestures work smoothly. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive control, 3 points for laggy seek operations, and 5 points for missing loading indicators during buffering. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/qianqian-jingting-ttplayer-music-player-qml-pyside6.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1421,
+  "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. Create a Qianqian Jingting (TTPlayer) style music player software with QML for the interface and PySide6 for control.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the music player interface design visually similar to TTPlayer?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the QML interface properly implements the distinctive Qianqian Jingting (TTPlayer) visual style, including the classic blue gradient color scheme, semi-transparent design elements, reflective surfaces, and rounded corners. Score 0 if the design bears no resemblance to TTPlayer, 5 if basic styling is present but lacks defining characteristics, and 10 if the interface is nearly indistinguishable from the original TTPlayer aesthetic.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the code implement core music playback functionality?",
+      "description": "Check if the implementation includes essential music player functions: play/pause/stop controls, seeking functionality, volume control, playlist management, and support for common audio formats (MP3, FLAC, etc.). Verify that MediaPlayer or similar QML elements are properly integrated with audio sources. Score 0 if playback doesn't work, 5 if basic playback works but with limited controls, and 10 if all core functionality is properly implemented and working.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the PySide6 backend properly integrated with the QML frontend?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the MVC pattern with PySide6 providing backend functionality to the QML interface. Check that signals and slots are properly connected, Python models are exposed to QML correctly, and file system operations are handled by PySide6. Deduct 5 points if data binding is inconsistent or broken, and 3 points if Python backend functions are not properly accessible from QML. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include TTPlayer's signature visualization features?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements TTPlayer's distinctive audio visualization elements, such as spectrum analyzer, waveform display, or particle effects that respond to music. Check that visualizations are responsive to audio in real-time using FFT analysis or similar techniques. Score 0 if visualizations are missing, 5 if basic visualizations exist but aren't reactive to music, and 10 if visualizations are fully implemented with TTPlayer's distinctive style.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as missing audio files, corrupted metadata, memory 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. Lyrics synchronization and display 2. Online music search/streaming integration 3. Custom audio equalizer with presets). 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 volume control implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to music playback (e.g., a built-in web browser) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that consume CPU). 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/playback logic/data models), reusable QML components, Python class organization, and proper resource management. 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 resource files are not properly managed. 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 while maintaining TTPlayer's aesthetic: 1) Consistent and harmonious color scheme 2) Proper layout spacing and alignment 3) Professional typography (readable font sizes and weights). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for color combinations that clash with TTPlayer's brand identity, and 5 points for chaotic UI element placement. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to modern UI standards: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions between UI states 3) Responsive UI that doesn't block during file operations or loading. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for stuttering animations, and 5 points for UI freezing during background operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/real-time-multi-user-audio-editing-platform.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 516,
+  "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 whenever possible. Implement a real-time multi-user online audio editing collaboration platform that allows multiple users to simultaneously edit the same audio project, synchronize changes in real-time, and provide version control functionality.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio editing system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements core audio processing functionality including waveform visualization, playback controls, track mixing, and effects application. Score 0 if core editing capabilities are missing, 5 if only basic playback and recording are implemented, and 10 if comprehensive audio manipulation features (cutting, splicing, effects, multi-track editing) are present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the real-time collaboration functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system allows multiple users to edit the same audio project simultaneously with proper conflict resolution. Check for WebSocket/WebRTC implementation with operational transformation or CRDT algorithms for handling concurrent edits. Deduct 5 points if changes aren't propagated in real-time (≤ 300ms), and 3 points if user presence indicators are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the version control system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes robust version control capabilities including commit history, branching, merging, and the ability to revert to previous states. Check if audio state snapshots are stored efficiently (using differential storage rather than full copies). Deduct 5 points if there's no visual history timeline, and 3 points if branch management is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio synchronization mechanism optimized for network efficiency?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements bandwidth-efficient audio synchronization using techniques like delta encoding, audio chunk caching, and progressive loading. Check for handling of network latency with local prediction and server correction. Deduct 5 points if large audio files transfer causes UI freezing, and 3 points if there's no offline editing capability with later synchronization. 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 audio format incompatibilities, network interruptions, browser audio 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. AI-assisted audio enhancement tools 2. Real-time voice chat for collaboration sessions 3. Interactive audio visualization options). 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 editing (e.g., a built-in video player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the UI). 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/network 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) Waveform rendering and manipulation response ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback during audio processing operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy waveform displays during editing, and 5 points for unintuitive tool placement. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/timeline-based-audio-annotation-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 481,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the code generated is executable for demonstration.\n\n## Role ##\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are now provided with a software development requirement description, and you are asked to generate project code based on this requirement. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand language comments, and don't output anything else.\n\n## Output Rules ##\n1. You will always generate complete runnable project code. Please ensure that the project is complete and executable\n2. Ensure that all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before the final output 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 need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data\n\n## Project Requirements Description ##\nPlease develop a timeline-based audio annotation tool suitable for music teachers, audio editors, or collaborators. Users can upload audio files, then add text comments, voice annotations, or graphical markers at specific points on the timeline. Other users can view these annotations, add replies, forming a conversation. The system should support filtering by annotation type, exporting annotation summaries, and automatically pausing and displaying annotations at the corresponding position during audio playback.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio upload and playback functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements audio file upload handling, proper playback controls (play/pause/seek), and waveform visualization. Check if the audio player supports various formats (MP3, WAV, OGG) and handles edge cases like large files and invalid formats.0 points if audio upload/playback is missing, 5 points if basic functionality works but with limitations, 10 points for a complete implementation with format support, error handling, and responsive waveform visualization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the timeline-based annotation system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine the implementation of adding, editing, and displaying annotations at specific time points on the timeline. Check if the system supports all required annotation types (text comments, voice annotations, graphical markers) with precise time positioning. Verify that annotations are visually distinguishable on the timeline.0 points if annotations cannot be added to timeline points, 5 points if only basic text annotations are supported, 10 points for full implementation of all annotation types with accurate time positioning and visual representation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the collaborative annotation functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether users can view others' annotations and add replies, forming conversation threads. Check if the system properly manages user identification, permissions, and real-time or asynchronous updates. Verify that threaded discussions are properly organized and displayed.0 points if collaboration features are missing, 5 points if basic viewing/replying works but lacks organization, 10 points for complete implementation with proper threading, user identification, and update mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the advanced annotation features implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of filtering by annotation type, exporting annotation summaries, and automatic pausing/displaying annotations during playback. Check if these features are intuitive and functional. Verify that exported summaries contain all relevant information.Deduct 3 points if filtering is missing, 3 points if export functionality is incomplete, and 4 points if the automatic pause/display feature doesn't work properly. Full score is 10 points for complete implementation of all advanced features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, network interruptions, concurrent editing conflicts) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases.10 points for comprehensive error handling covering all key user flows, 5 points for average robustness with some gaps, 0 points if critical error scenarios are unhandled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-based automatic transcription, 2. Customizable keyboard shortcuts, 3. Export to common formats like PDF/CSV, 4. Visual heat map showing annotation density across timeline).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 annotation systems), 2. Function modules unrelated to audio annotation (e.g., unrelated social features), 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations that slow down timeline navigation).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/annotation logic/view layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper state management, clean code practices, and documentation.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 distinction between timeline, audio controls, and annotation panel.Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic 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) Timeline scrubbing feels responsive (≤ 100ms delay) 2) Annotation placement is precise and intuitive 3) Playback transitions are smooth 4) Annotation filtering updates display immediately 5) Audio playback synchronizes perfectly with visual timeline position.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy timeline navigation, and 5 points for hard-to-use annotation placement. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/timeline-based-audio-editor.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 626,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible. Implement a timeline-based audio editor where users can add, move, and delete audio clips on a timeline, adjust the playback position and duration of each clip, and finally export the edited audio.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core timeline-based audio editor interface implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides a complete visual timeline interface with proper time scale representation, audio track visualization, and cursor positioning. Check if the timeline shows waveform representations of audio clips and supports zooming in/out of the timeline view. Score 0 if the timeline visualization is missing, 5 if basic timeline is implemented without waveforms, and 10 if the timeline is fully featured with proper visual feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the audio clip manipulation operations fully functional?",
+      "description": "Check whether users can add audio clips to the timeline, move them by drag-and-drop, delete selected clips, and trim clip boundaries. Verify that the code handles overlapping clips appropriately (either with layering or automatic spacing). Deduct 3 points if any of these basic operations is missing, and 2 points if the operations lack visual feedback during manipulation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is audio playback with timeline synchronization implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify that the code includes a functional playback mechanism that plays audio clips according to their timeline positions, with a moving playhead indicator showing the current playback position. Check if playback controls (play, pause, stop) are implemented and work correctly with the timeline. Deduct 5 points if playback doesn't sync with the visual timeline, and 3 points if seeking functionality is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation support audio export functionality?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code provides a mechanism to export the final edited audio, including proper mixing of overlapping clips, handling of gaps in the timeline, and export format options (e.g., WAV, MP3). Check if the export process shows progress feedback and handles errors gracefully. Score 0 if export functionality is missing, 5 if basic export is implemented without format options or proper mixing, and 10 if complete export functionality is provided.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid audio files, browser incompatibilities, memory limitations 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. Real-time audio effects processing 2. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient editing 3. Automated beat detection for clip alignment 4. Multi-track mixing controls). 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., a built-in video player when not needed) 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/UI/data management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper use of Web Audio API or similar technologies. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Check specifically for smooth waveform scrolling and responsive clip manipulation. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy timeline scrolling, 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"
+}