@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/online-video-puzzle-generator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 476,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the code you generate can be executed and displayed. Create an online video puzzle generator where users can select multiple images, set the order and duration of each image in the video, add transition effects, choose background music, and export as a video file. Provide a real-time preview feature.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the image selection and management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code allows users to select multiple images from their device, add them to a working area, reorder them, and manage them (delete, duplicate). Check if there's proper validation for file formats (JPG, PNG, WebP, etc.) and size limitations. Score 0 if no image selection is implemented, 5 if basic selection exists but lacks management features, and 10 if complete with drag-and-drop reordering and thumbnail previews.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the timeline and duration control system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can set precise durations for each image, adjust the order in a visual timeline interface, and see visual representations of image durations. Check if time markers and timeline scrubbing are implemented. Deduct 5 points if only basic duration input fields exist without visual timeline representation, and 3 points if timeline navigation lacks scrubbing functionality. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are transition effects properly implemented with previews?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code provides a variety of transition effects (fade, slide, zoom, etc.) between images with real-time previews. Each transition should be customizable in terms of duration and parameters. Evaluate if transitions render smoothly in the preview. Deduct 5 points if fewer than 5 transition types are available, and 3 points if transitions appear choppy in preview. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the background music selection and audio control system functional?",
+      "description": "Assess if users can upload audio files or select from a library, adjust volume levels, trim audio length to match video duration, and synchronize with the video timeline. Check for audio visualization during preview. Deduct 5 points if audio trimming isn't supported, and 3 points if volume control is missing. Award full 10 points only if audio waveform visualization and precise timing control are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, oversized images/audio, 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. AI-assisted auto-trimming based on image content 2. Smart transitions that analyze image content 3. Text overlay and captioning tools 4. Motion effects for still images). 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 preview players running simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to video puzzle creation (e.g., a built-in social sharing system) 3. Resource-intensive effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary real-time video processing during editing). 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 media processing/UI/export logic), 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) Preview rendering starts within 500ms of changes 2) UI remains responsive during video processing 3) Clear visual feedback during export process with progress indicators. Deduct 5 points for laggy timeline scrubbing, 3 points for delayed preview updates after parameter changes, and 5 points for export functions without progress indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/online-video-resolution-adjuster.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 648,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is functional and executable. Create an online video resolution adjustment tool that allows users to upload videos and then adjust the resolution to either 720p or 480p, with the ability to download the processed video afterward.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes proper file input handling for video uploads, with support for common video formats (MP4, WebM, AVI, MOV). The implementation should validate file types, manage upload size limits (showing progress for large files), and handle upload errors gracefully with user feedback. Score 0 if no upload functionality exists, 5 if basic upload works but lacks validation, 10 if fully implemented with comprehensive error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the video resolution adjustment functionality correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements resolution adjustment to exactly 720p (1280x720) and 480p (854x480) while maintaining aspect ratio. The implementation should use efficient video processing libraries (like FFmpeg wrappers or Web API solutions) and properly handle codec compatibility. Deduct 3 points if aspect ratio is not preserved, 5 points if resolution options are hardcoded without flexibility, and 5 points if the conversion process doesn't provide status updates. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the video download functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review if the code generates downloadable video files after processing, with proper file naming conventions and MIME type handling. Check if the implementation includes download progress indicators and handles large file downloads appropriately (using Blob or stream processing). Deduct 5 points if the download mechanism doesn't work for videos larger than 100MB, and 3 points if no file naming options are provided. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the video preview functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes a video preview feature that allows users to see both the original and processed videos for comparison. The preview should include basic playback controls (play/pause, seek, volume) and display resolution information. Deduct 5 points if the preview doesn't work across different browsers, and 3 points if the video controls are minimal or buggy. Give 10 points if the preview includes side-by-side comparison with visual quality indicators.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported video formats, aborted uploads/downloads, 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. Video thumbnail generation 2. Batch processing multiple videos 3. Additional resolution options beyond requirements 4. Video compression settings). Add 2.5 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 video processing methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to video resolution adjustment (e.g., excessive video editing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations or filters). 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/processing/storage logic), memory management (especially for video processing), and worker thread usage. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if memory leaks occur during video processing; deduct 5 points if large video processing blocks the UI thread. 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) Processing feedback is clear and immediate 2) Progress indicators for long operations (upload, processing, download) 3) Clear visual guidance through the workflow. Deduct 5 points for operations without progress indicators, 3 points for UI freezes during processing, and 5 points for confusing workflow navigation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/photo-background-text-subtitle-video-synthesis.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 921,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable and demonstrable. Requirement: Upload a portrait photo, input a text, and synthesize a video output where the photo serves as the video background and the text appears as the video subtitle. Please provide the code implementation.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the image upload and processing functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload validation (format checking for jpg/png/webp), image preprocessing (resolution optimization, aspect ratio adjustment), and canvas rendering capabilities. Score 0 if basic upload is not implemented, 5 if only simple upload without validation exists, and 10 if complete image processing pipeline with error handling is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the text input and subtitle rendering system properly constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes text input validation, subtitle timing control, multi-line text handling, and proper text encoding support. Evaluate subtitle positioning algorithms, font rendering quality, and text overflow handling. Deduct 5 points if subtitle synchronization is missing, and 3 points if special characters are not properly handled. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the video synthesis and export functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the video generation uses proper encoding (H.264/WebM), includes audio track handling, and provides multiple output format options. Check if the implementation supports different video resolutions and frame rates. Deduct 5 points if video quality is below 720p, and 3 points if export progress tracking is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the complete media processing pipeline optimized?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes efficient memory management for large files, background processing for video generation, and proper cleanup of temporary resources. Evaluate streaming processing capabilities and batch operation support. Deduct 5 points if memory leaks are present, and 3 points if processing cancellation is not supported. Give 10 points if fully optimized.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted image files, oversized uploads, invalid text input, 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 preview during editing 2. Multiple subtitle animation effects 3. Background music integration 4. Batch processing capabilities 5. Social sharing 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 file upload handlers coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video synthesis (e.g., built-in photo editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary real-time filters). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating upload/processing/rendering 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) 4) Clear upload area design with drag-and-drop visual cues. 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) Upload progress feedback with smooth animations 2) Processing status indicators with clear transitions 3) Preview functionality with instant response 4) Export progress with accurate time estimates. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy preview rendering, and 5 points for unclear processing status. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/picture-in-picture-video-editor.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 690,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Develop a Picture-in-Picture video effect editor that allows users to upload one main video and multiple auxiliary videos, displaying the auxiliary videos as picture-in-picture on the main video. Users can adjust the size, position, border, and shape (such as circle, oval, etc.) of the picture-in-picture, and set entrance and exit animation effects. Support simultaneous display of multiple picture-in-picture elements with timeline control, suitable for creating reaction videos, commentary videos, and educational demonstrations.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload and management system implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Check if the code allows users to upload one main video and multiple auxiliary videos with proper file validation (checking formats like MP4, WebM, AVI, etc.) and error handling. The system should manage these videos efficiently with preview functionality before adding them to the editor. Score 0 if video upload is not implemented, 5 if only basic uploads work without validation, and 10 if complete video management with previews and format validation is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Picture-in-Picture (PiP) positioning and sizing functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides comprehensive controls for manipulating PiP videos, including precise positioning (x/y coordinates or grid snapping), resizing with aspect ratio preservation, z-index control for overlapping PiPs, and responsive behavior across different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points if position control is limited to predefined spots, 3 points if resizing doesn't maintain aspect ratio, and 4 points if z-index management is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are PiP customization options fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether users can customize the PiP appearance through border styles (width, color, pattern), shape masking (rectangle, circle, oval, custom shapes), opacity controls, and filters (brightness, contrast, saturation). Score 3 points for basic border controls, 3 points for shape masking implementation, 2 points for opacity/transparency features, and 2 points for video filters. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the timeline control and animation system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code implements a functional timeline that allows users to control when PiP elements appear and disappear, with precise timing controls (down to millisecond accuracy). Check for entrance/exit animation capabilities (fade, slide, zoom, etc.) with customizable duration and easing functions. Deduct 5 points if timeline scrubbing precision is poor, 3 points if animation options are limited to fewer than 5 types, and 2 points if animation easing controls are missing. 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 video format incompatibility, browser memory constraints, user operation errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for browser compatibility across major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge). Deduct 3 points for each major browser incompatibility, 4 points if error handling is inadequate, and 3 points if the application crashes when videos fail to load. The full score is 10 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 PiP positioning 2. Audio ducking when multiple videos play simultaneously 3. Motion tracking to move PiP with content 4. Templates for common PiP layouts). Add 2.5 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 video players with different APIs) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., a built-in social network) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive background 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 video processing/UI/state management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for the use of appropriate design patterns, memory management for video assets, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 3 points if global state pollution is found, 4 points if video memory isn't properly managed, and 3 points if the rendering pipeline isn't optimized. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern editor design principles: 1) Clear separation between preview area, timeline, and controls 2) Consistent icon system and color scheme 3) Responsive layout that adapts to different screen sizes 4) High contrast between interactive elements and background. Deduct 3 points for cluttered workspace design, 3 points for inconsistent iconography, and 4 points for poor visual hierarchy of editing tools. 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 video editing expectations: 1) Real-time preview updates when modifying PiP parameters 2) Smooth timeline scrubbing without frame drops 3) Responsive drag-and-drop for PiP positioning 4) Clear visual feedback during rendering operations. Deduct 3 points for laggy preview updates, 3 points for jerky timeline scrubbing, and 4 points if export/rendering progress indicators are missing or inaccurate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/simple-love-confession-code-video.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 784,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to produce executable code whenever possible. Create a simple love confession code for me that can be presented in video format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the love confession video generation implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code successfully creates a video output with proper love confession elements. Check if the code includes video creation libraries (e.g., ffmpeg wrappers), animation frameworks, or canvas-to-video conversion. Score 0 if no video output is possible, 5 if basic video is created but with limitations, 10 if a complete video with smooth playback is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the confession include interactive or animated elements?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of animations, transitions, or interactive elements in the confession. Look for CSS animations, JavaScript animations (GSAP, anime.js), or canvas-based animations. Deduct 5 points if animations are jerky or have performance issues, 3 points if timing is poorly synchronized. The full score is 10 points for smooth, thematic animations that enhance the confession.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the text content of the confession customizable?",
+      "description": "Check if the code allows for personalization of the confession message, names, dates, or other content. Score 10 points if the code includes clear variables or parameters for customization, 5 points if limited customization is possible but requires code editing, 0 points if all content is hardcoded without any customization options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the code include audio or sound integration?",
+      "description": "Assess whether background music, sound effects, or voice narration capabilities are implemented. Check for proper audio format support, volume control, and synchronization with visual elements. Deduct 5 points if audio implementation is present but not synchronized with visuals, 3 points if audio controls are missing. The full score is 10 points for complete audio implementation with proper timing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as media loading failures, browser compatibility issues, mobile responsiveness, etc.) and provide fallbacks or friendly error prompts. Code with strong robustness should handle edge cases effectively, 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. Interactive elements that respond to user input 2. Particle effects or visual surprises 3. Responsive design that adapts to different viewing contexts). 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 animation systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the confession (e.g., unnecessary game elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems). 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 content/presentation/interaction layers), code structure, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global scope pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear organization or commenting. 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 (romantic theme with complementary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing and composition 3) Professional typography (readable fonts, proper sizing and contrast). Deduct 3 points for each visual design flaw, 5 points for clashing colors or illegible text, and 5 points for chaotic layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the emotional impact effective and appropriate?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the confession creates genuine emotional resonance: 1) Appropriate pacing for emotional buildup 2) Harmonious integration of visuals, text, and potentially audio 3) Tasteful presentation without being cliché. Deduct 5 points for an overly generic approach, 3 points for mismatched tone or mood, and 5 points for elements that detract from the sincere message. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/social-media-short-video-generator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 548,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code whenever possible. Implement a social media short video generator where users can upload image and video materials, and the system provides various video templates (such as stories, product showcases, travel logs, etc.). Users can replace materials in templates, adjust duration, add text and stickers. Support adding background music and adjusting volume, and export the finished product in different sizes and formats suitable for Instagram, TikTok and WeChat.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the material upload and management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete upload system that handles both images and videos with proper validation, processing, and storage management. Check for file type validation, size limits, progress indicators, and thumbnail generation. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks proper validation or processing, 10 if the system includes comprehensive asset management with tagging, categorization, and search capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the video templates properly implemented with customization options?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides a variety of templates (stories, product showcases, travel logs, etc.) with placeholder slots for user content. Check if templates include timing information, transition effects, and customizable sections. Deduct 3 points if fewer than 5 template options are provided, 5 points if templates cannot be previewed before selection, and 3 points if template customization is limited. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the timeline editor functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Verify whether the code implements an interactive timeline editor that allows users to adjust clip duration, arrange segments, add transitions, and precisely control the video flow. Check for frame-accurate editing capabilities, drag-and-drop functionality, and preview options. Deduct 5 points if the timeline lacks visual representation of content, 3 points if trimming functionality is missing, and 5 points if there's no real-time preview of changes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are text overlay and sticker functionalities properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code allows adding text with customizable fonts, sizes, colors, and animations, as well as sticker/overlay placement with scaling and rotation options. Check for text timing controls, animation presets, and sticker library management. Score 0 if text/sticker functionality is missing, 5 if basic implementation exists but lacks animation or positioning flexibility, and 10 if it includes advanced features like text effects, sticker categories, and keyframe animation control.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, oversized uploads, 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. AI-assisted video creation suggestions 2. Voice-to-text caption generation 3. One-click theme application with color correction). 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 video processing libraries doing the same job) 2. Function modules unrelated to video creation (e.g., a built-in chat system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive background animations in the editor). 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 video processing logic/UI/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 audio handling and export functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the code properly implements audio features (background music addition, volume adjustment, fade in/out) and export capabilities for different platforms. Check if the system can export in various aspect ratios (9:16 for TikTok, 4:5 for Instagram, 1:1 for others) and appropriate quality settings. Deduct 5 points if audio waveform visualization is missing, 3 points if volume normalization is not implemented, and 5 points if exports don't include platform-specific metadata or optimizations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/software-video-player-all-formats.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 813,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the code you generate can be executed and displayed. Design a video player that supports software playback of all formats.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video player's core functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core video playing capabilities through HTML5 video API or custom implementations. Check support for multiple codecs (H.264, VP9, AV1, HEVC), container formats (MP4, WebM, MKV, AVI), and streaming protocols (HLS, DASH, RTMP). Score 0 if basic playback isn't working, 5 if only common formats work, 10 if comprehensive format support is implemented with proper fallback mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is codec and format detection properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the player's ability to detect and handle various video formats automatically. Check for proper MIME type detection, codec identification, and dynamic loading of necessary decoders. Deduct 5 points if format detection requires manual input, 3 points if some major formats aren't properly detected. The player should intelligently select the best available codec based on browser support and provide clear error messages when a format is unsupported.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the player include essential playback controls and features?",
+      "description": "Check for implementation of standard controls (play/pause, volume, seek, fullscreen), along with advanced features like playback speed adjustment, subtitles/captions support (SRT, VTT, ASS formats), and quality selection. Verify that keyboard shortcuts work properly. Deduct 2 points for each missing essential control and 1 point for each missing advanced feature. Full score requires picture-in-picture support and custom keyboard mapping.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there an adaptive streaming implementation?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the player's ability to dynamically adjust quality based on network conditions. Check for implementation of ABR (Adaptive Bitrate) algorithms, buffer management, and bandwidth estimation. Verify the player can smoothly switch between quality levels without interruption. Deduct 5 points if adaptive streaming is missing, 3 points if the implementation doesn't handle network fluctuations well. Full score requires preloading strategies and intelligent quality selection based on device capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted video files, network interruption, 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. AI-powered content analysis for smart thumbnails 2. Advanced audio normalization 3. Frame-accurate editing capabilities 4. Social sharing with timestamp links). 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 coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video playback (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact playback). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating player core/UI/plugin systems), 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) Controls appear/disappear within 100ms 2) Hover effects respond instantly 3) Seeking and volume changes reflect immediately in UI. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy transitions when controls appear/disappear, and 5 points for controls that obstruct video content unnecessarily. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/tiktok-watermark-removal-mini-program.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 859,
+  "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. Develop a TikTok watermark removal mini-program using uni-app in HBuilder, send me the project structure and complete code with properly closed tags.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the TikTok watermark removal core functionality implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements the watermark removal algorithm through video processing techniques. Check if it can extract the original video URL from TikTok shared links, download the video, and process it to remove watermarks. Score 0 if no watermark removal logic is present, 5 if basic URL extraction is implemented but processing is incomplete, and 10 if the complete pipeline (link parsing, video downloading, watermark removal) is functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the uni-app framework properly utilized for cross-platform compatibility?",
+      "description": "Check whether the project correctly implements the uni-app structure and employs its APIs for cross-platform functionality. The mini-program should work on WeChat, Alipay, and other platforms. Examine if conditional compilation is used for platform-specific code. Deduct 5 points if platform adaptation is missing, 3 points if uni-app lifecycle hooks are improperly implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the HBuilder project structure organized properly?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the project follows the standard uni-app directory structure with proper organization of pages, components, static resources, and configuration files. Check for presence of manifest.json, pages.json, and App.vue with appropriate configurations. Deduct 3 points for each critical missing file, and 2 points for improper nesting of directories. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and permission handling implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes proper handling of necessary permissions (camera, storage, network) and user authentication for saving processed videos. Check if it includes permission request flows and graceful fallbacks when permissions are denied. Deduct 5 points if permission handling is missing, 3 points if error states aren't handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid TikTok links, network interruption, video processing 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. Batch processing of multiple TikTok videos 2. Custom watermark replacement options 3. Video quality enhancement 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 video processing libraries used for the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to watermark removal (e.g., built-in games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/business logic/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) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}