@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-auto-editing-tool-with-scene-detection.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 487,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure the code you provide is executable for demonstration. Develop a video auto-editing tool where, after users upload long videos, the algorithm automatically detects scene transition points (sudden changes in images), generates a suggested list of editing points, allows users to adjust them, and then automatically splits video segments to export a collection of selected clips.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload and processing system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code provides a complete upload interface with progress indication, handles various video formats (MP4, MOV, AVI, etc.), and properly manages file chunks for large videos. Check if video metadata extraction is implemented for resolution, duration, fps, and codec information. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works without proper error handling, and 10 if comprehensive upload with progress tracking and format validation is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the scene transition detection algorithm effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the algorithm's technical approach for detecting scene changes (e.g., pixel difference calculation, histogram comparison, machine learning-based detection). Check if the algorithm includes sensitivity adjustment parameters, false positive filtering, and optimization for processing speed. Deduct 5 points if only basic frame differencing is used without refinement, 3 points if the algorithm is not configurable, and 2 points if processing is inefficient for longer videos. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the editing point suggestion and adjustment interface user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Check if the interface displays detected scene transitions with visual indicators (thumbnails or waveforms), allows drag-and-drop adjustment of edit points, and includes features like zooming in/out on the timeline. Review the precision of frame selection controls and undo/redo functionality. Deduct 5 points if manual adjustment is difficult, 3 points if visual indicators are inadequate, and 2 points if precise frame selection is not possible. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the video splitting and export functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Examine if the code handles video segment extraction without re-encoding when possible, maintains original video quality, supports batch export of multiple segments, and provides export progress feedback. Check for export format options and quality settings. Score 0 if export functionality is missing, 5 if basic export works but lacks options or feedback, and 10 if comprehensive export with quality preservation and format options is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted video files, browser crashes during upload, memory limitations with large videos, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include proper exception handling, temporary storage for in-progress edits, and resume capabilities. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points if only basic error handling exists, and 0 points if exceptions are not handled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-based content recognition for smart suggestions 2. Audio waveform visualization for better edit point selection 3. Batch processing of multiple videos). 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 video processing functions 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., built-in social sharing that could be handled separately) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing logic/UI/file handling layers), unit test coverage, and performance optimization. Examine the use of Web Workers for non-UI tasks and efficient memory management for video processing. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no optimization for memory usage with large videos exists. 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 video timeline design with clear markers and indicators. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor timeline visualization, and 5 points for chaotic control panel layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the video editing interactions conform to professional standards: 1) Real-time preview responds within 500ms 2) Scrubbing through video is smooth at 24+ fps 3) Edit point adjustment has clear visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for laggy preview rendering, 3 points for jerky timeline navigation, and 5 points for unresponsive controls during video processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-background-replacement-chroma-key-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 665,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the generated code is executable. Implement a video background replacement/green screen processing tool that allows users to upload videos with green screen (or blue screen), automatically detects and removes the background color, and replaces it with user-uploaded images or video backgrounds. Provide chroma key control parameters (such as hue range, tolerance, smoothness, etc.) for adjustment to optimize keying effects. Support real-time preview and export of the final composite video.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the chroma key algorithm accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements chroma key background removal algorithms, including HSV color space conversion, hue range detection, tolerance control, and edge smoothness processing. Check if it supports both green screen and blue screen detection with proper color distance calculations. Score 0 if basic color detection is missing, 5 if only simple RGB threshold is implemented, and 10 if advanced HSV-based chroma key with edge feathering is fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the video processing pipeline properly constructed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the video processing workflow includes frame-by-frame extraction, background replacement compositing, and re-encoding functionality. Check if WebGL/Canvas is used for hardware acceleration and if proper memory management prevents browser crashes during large video processing. Deduct 5 points if no frame buffering mechanism exists, and 3 points if video encoding format compatibility is limited. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are comprehensive chroma key control parameters provided?",
+      "description": "Check whether the interface provides essential control parameters including hue range slider, color tolerance adjustment, edge smoothness control, spill suppression, and alpha channel fine-tuning. Verify if real-time parameter adjustment updates the preview immediately. Deduct 5 points if key parameters like tolerance or smoothness are missing, and 3 points if parameter changes don't reflect in real-time preview. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is real-time preview and export functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides smooth real-time preview of the chroma key effect with acceptable frame rate (≥15fps for preview). Check if video export supports multiple formats (MP4, WebM) with quality options and progress indication. Deduct 5 points if preview is laggy or non-responsive, and 5 points if export functionality is incomplete or crashes. Give 10 points if both preview and export work seamlessly.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported video formats, oversized files, memory overflow, corrupted video data, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered auto chroma key detection 2. Batch processing multiple videos 3. Advanced compositing modes like screen/multiply 4. Custom mask drawing tools). 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 color detection algorithms coexisting unnecessarily) 2. Function modules unrelated to video processing (e.g., built-in social sharing widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive UI animations during video processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core video processing functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing/UI/file handling layers), worker thread usage for heavy processing, and proper error handling. Deduct 5 points if main thread blocking is found during video processing; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no progress indication exists for long operations. 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 parameter control layout with proper visual hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic control panel layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Parameter adjustment feedback delay ≤ 200ms 2) Video preview playback controls are responsive 3) Clear visual focus guidance for upload areas and control panels 4) Smooth transitions between different processing states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky parameter adjustments, and 5 points for unclear upload/processing status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-dubbing-tool-with-audio-waveform-sync.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 535,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure any generated code is executable for demonstration purposes.\n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code that is fully commented in simple, easy-to-understand language, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nImplement a video dubbing tool that supports real-time audio recording while playing existing videos, visualizes audio waveforms, allows alignment and adjustment of synchronization between recordings and video, and exports video files with the new audio track.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video playback and control system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements video playback controls through HTML5 video API, including play/pause, seek, timeline scrubbing, and frame-accurate positioning. Check if custom video controls are properly styled and responsive. Score 0 if basic video playback is not implemented, 5 if only basic play/pause is available, and 10 if full video control with timeline manipulation and frame-accurate seeking is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the real-time audio recording functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the WebRTC MediaRecorder API is correctly implemented with proper microphone access permissions, real-time audio capture, and recording state management. Check if the recording can start/stop in sync with video playback and handles different audio formats. Deduct 5 points if permission handling is missing, 3 points if recording quality controls are absent. Full score requires seamless recording with proper error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the audio waveform visualization accurately rendered?",
+      "description": "Check whether the waveform visualization uses Web Audio API with proper frequency analysis and canvas/SVG rendering. Evaluate if the waveform updates in real-time during recording and displays recorded audio accurately. Deduct 5 points if waveform doesn't sync with audio timeline, 3 points if visual quality is poor or choppy. Requires smooth real-time visualization with proper scaling and time alignment.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio-video synchronization and alignment system complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides tools for fine-tuning audio-video synchronization, including offset adjustment controls, visual alignment guides, and preview functionality. Check if users can precisely align recorded audio with video timeline through drag-and-drop or numeric input. Deduct 5 points if alignment tools are basic, 3 points if no visual feedback is provided. Full score requires precise synchronization controls with millisecond accuracy.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as microphone access denial, unsupported video formats, memory limitations during long recordings, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If 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 noise reduction during recording 2. Multiple audio track layering 3. Voice activity detection with auto-pause 4. Keyboard shortcuts for precise control 5. Automatic backup of work-in-progress). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple audio processing pipelines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video dubbing (e.g., built-in video editing tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive visual animations during recording). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core dubbing 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/video handling/UI layers), proper async/await usage for media operations, and memory management for large files. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or media resources are not properly disposed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper error boundaries exist for media operations. 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 media tool design principles: 1) Professional timeline UI with clear time markers 2) Intuitive waveform visualization colors (contrasting background) 3) Proper control button sizing (minimum 44px touch targets) 4) Consistent spacing following 8px grid system. Deduct 3 points for each crowded control element, 5 points for poor waveform visibility, and 5 points for confusing timeline layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the media interactions conform to professional standards: 1) Video scrubbing responds within 100ms 2) Recording start/stop feedback is immediate 3) Waveform rendering maintains 30fps during playback 4) Synchronization adjustments provide real-time preview. Deduct 5 points for each laggy media operation, 3 points for choppy waveform animation, and 5 points for delayed audio-video sync feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-editing-timeline-manager.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 622,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code can be executed and demonstrated. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You will always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is complete and executable\n2. Make sure all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or using user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDevelop a video editing timeline manager where users can upload multiple video and audio files, arrange video and audio clips on the timeline through drag-and-drop operations to complete editing, and finally generate and export the video.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video timeline component fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete timeline interface with time markers, zoom controls, and frame-accurate positioning. Check if the timeline supports multiple video/audio tracks and if scrubbing/playback functionality is properly synchronized with the video preview. Score 0 if core timeline visualization is missing, 5 if basic timeline exists but lacks essential features, 10 if the timeline is fully featured with professional-grade precision.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the drag-and-drop media arrangement functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the drag-and-drop implementation for arranging video and audio clips on the timeline. Check if the code handles drag start/over/end events correctly, includes visual feedback during dragging, supports clip trimming/splitting, and maintains proper snapping to adjacent clips or time markers. Deduct 3 points if drag positioning is inaccurate, 3 points if visual feedback during dragging is poor, and 4 points if clip operations (trimming/splitting) are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the video/audio upload and management system complete?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements complete media upload functionality with proper file validation, progress indicators, and error handling. Verify if uploaded assets are properly organized in a media library with thumbnails/waveforms and if the system efficiently handles memory management for large media files. Deduct 4 points if media preview generation is missing, 3 points if file format validation is inadequate, and 3 points if there's no progress feedback during uploads. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the video export and rendering functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the rendering pipeline correctly handles timeline data to generate a final video output. Check if the code includes export resolution options, format selection, quality settings, and progress indicators. Verify if the implementation handles frame-accurate video/audio synchronization during rendering. Deduct 5 points if rendering progress feedback is missing, 3 points if export quality options are limited, and 2 points if the rendering process lacks error handling or cancellation options. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, very large video files, browser 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. AI-powered automatic scene detection 2. Auto-generated transitions between clips 3. Audio waveform visualization 4. Real-time video effects preview). 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 work) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., a built-in social network) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the UI that slow down 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 editing logic/UI/rendering pipeline), 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 professional video editing software principles: 1) Appropriate dark theme with proper contrast for long editing sessions 2) Clear visual hierarchy between timeline, preview area, and controls 3) Professional iconography consistent with industry standards. Deduct 3 points for cluttered workspace layout, 5 points for poor contrast that hinders timeline readability, and 5 points for confusing or inconsistent icon usage. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the timeline interaction conforms to video editing workflow expectations: 1) Frame-accurate scrubbing with minimal latency 2) Smooth zooming and panning without stuttering 3) Responsive clip manipulation with immediate visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for laggy playback or scrubbing, 3 points for jerky timeline navigation, and 5 points for delayed feedback when manipulating clips. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-editing-tool-with-transitions-and-text.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 693,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please write code to implement a video editing tool where users can upload multiple video clips, crop each clip, and adjust the order through drag and drop. The tool needs to support adding transition effects (fade-in/fade-out, cross-dissolve, wipe, etc. - at least 5 different effects), allow users to add text annotations and simple animation effects to videos. After completing the edits, users can preview the composite result and export it as MP4 format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload and management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements file upload functionality for multiple video clips, includes proper MIME type validation, provides progress indicators during upload, and organizes uploaded clips in a manageable interface. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works without validation or progress indicators, and 10 if the system handles all aspects professionally including error handling for invalid file formats or failed uploads.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the basic video cropping/trimming functions properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes accurate video trimming capabilities with frame-precise control. The implementation should provide visual indicators for start/end points, preview thumbnails at different timestamps, and maintain video quality during trimming operations. Deduct 5 points if the trimming lacks frame-level precision, 3 points if there's no visual timeline for selection, and 3 points if the preview mechanism is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the drag-and-drop reordering functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements an intuitive drag-and-drop interface for reordering video clips, with visual feedback during dragging (such as placeholder indicators), smooth animations when clips are reordered, and proper state management to maintain the new sequence. Deduct 5 points if drag operations are jerky or imprecise, 3 points if visual feedback is missing during drag operations, and 5 points if the reordering doesn't persist correctly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the required transition effects implemented with proper controls?",
+      "description": "Verify that the code includes at least 5 distinct transition effects (fade-in/fade-out, cross-dissolve, wipe, etc.) with appropriate preview capabilities and duration controls. Each transition should be properly rendered between clips in the preview. Deduct 2 points for each missing required transition type, 5 points if transitions cannot be previewed, and 3 points if duration controls are missing or imprecise. 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 browser compatibility issues, interrupted uploads, corrupted video files, memory constraints with large videos, 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 editing suggestions 2. Automatic beat detection for music-synchronized transitions 3. One-click theme application across multiple clips and transitions). 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 players coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., a built-in game) 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 logic/UI components/file handling), 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 video preview and export functionality complete and reliable?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the preview and export functions meet professional standards: 1) Real-time preview reflects all edits accurately 2) Export process shows clear progress indication 3) Multiple quality/format options for export 4) Exported files maintain original resolution quality. Deduct 5 points if preview performance is laggy, 5 points if export fails on complex projects, 3 points if exported files show quality degradation, and 3 points if format options are limited. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-filter-app-upload-effects-preview.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 572,
+  "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.\n\n## Role\nYou are an experienced code expert. You have been provided with a software development requirement description, and you need to generate project code based on this description. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate the complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without adding anything else.\n\n## Output Rules\n1. You should always generate complete and runnable code. Please ensure the project is complete and executable.\n2. Make sure all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code.\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated.\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data.\n\n## Project Requirements Description\nCreate a video filter application page where users can upload videos, choose different filter effects (such as vintage, black and white, blur, etc.), preview the filtered video in real-time, and save the filtered video to their local device.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is a complete video upload system implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements a robust video upload system with features like file validation (format check, size limit), progress indicator, preview thumbnail generation, and error handling for unsuccessful uploads. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if only basic upload is implemented without validation/progress indicators, and 10 if all features are included with proper error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are multiple video filter effects properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes at least 5 distinct filter effects (vintage, black and white, blur, saturation, etc.) with proper implementation using WebGL/Canvas API. Each filter should have accurate shader code or canvas processing algorithms. Deduct 2 points for each missing essential filter (vintage, B&W, blur). Score 10 if all filters have proper implementations with performance optimization, 5 if filters work but without optimization, 0 if filters are not functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is real-time video filter preview functionality working?",
+      "description": "Check if the application can apply filters in real-time while the video is playing without significant frame drops. The implementation should handle the video processing pipeline correctly using requestAnimationFrame or WebGL for optimal performance. Score 10 if preview is smooth (maintaining at least 24fps) even with complex filters, 5 if there's noticeable lag with complex filters, and 0 if real-time preview is not implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the filtered video export/save functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a complete video export system that processes the entire video with selected filters and allows downloading. Check if it handles different resolutions, maintains original aspect ratio, and preserves audio. Score 10 if export works properly with progress indicator and quality options, 5 if basic export works but lacks advanced options, and 0 if export functionality is missing or non-functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported video formats, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large videos, 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. Filter intensity adjustment sliders 2. Custom filter creation tool 3. Filter application to specific video segments only). 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 filters (e.g., multiple blur algorithms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video filtering (e.g., a built-in media player with unnecessary features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive DOM animations during processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/filter processing/file handling 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) Filter application feedback delay ≤ 200ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual guidance during processing operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for sluggish response when switching filters, and 5 points for confusing UI state during video processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-format-conversion-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 537,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create a video format conversion tool where users can upload videos in different formats and select a target format (such as MP4, AVI, MOV, etc.) for conversion. Provide a conversion progress display and support downloading the converted video.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements file selection, upload validation (proper MIME types, file size limits), and client-side error handling. Score 0 if file upload is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload is present without validation, and 10 if comprehensive upload handling with proper file type checking, size limitations, and error handling is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the format conversion mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the back-end conversion logic uses reliable libraries (like FFmpeg), handles various input formats correctly, and provides proper error handling for malformed files. Deduct 5 points if only a limited set of formats is supported, and 3 points if file integrity verification is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the conversion progress display functioning correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the application provides real-time progress updates through a WebSocket or polling mechanism, displays meaningful progress indicators (not just indeterminate loaders), and handles edge cases like stalled conversions. Deduct 5 points if progress updates are not real-time, and 3 points if the UI doesn't show precise percentage completion. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the download functionality implemented with proper handling?",
+      "description": "Verify that the download mechanism creates proper file names, sets correct MIME types, handles large files appropriately (possibly using streaming), and provides fallbacks if browser download APIs fail. Deduct 5 points if download doesn't handle large files efficiently, and 3 points if there's no download status indication. 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 formats, corrupted files, server timeout, 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 preview before/after conversion 2. Batch processing capability 3. Custom encoding parameters 4. Video trimming or basic editing). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video conversion (e.g., a built-in media player with unnecessary features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during conversion). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating upload/conversion/download 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) Upload and conversion state changes are visually clear 2) Transition animations are controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for primary actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jittery progress indicators, and 5 points for confusing conversion workflow UI. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-picture-in-picture-creation-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 600,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable whenever possible. Please implement a video Picture-in-Picture creation tool that allows users to upload two video clips, where one is reduced in size and floats at any position over the other video during playback. Users should be able to customize the size and position of the child video, and export the edited video.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video uploading and processing functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements robust file uploading for the two video clips, with proper input validation, file type verification (checking for valid video formats like MP4, WebM, etc.), and error handling for oversized files. Check if the code includes progress indicators during upload. Score 0 if uploading is not implemented, 5 if basic uploading exists but lacks validation, 10 if complete with all error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Picture-in-Picture (PiP) display system correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of displaying one video over another. Check for proper z-index management, canvas or HTML5 video element positioning, and whether the solution maintains proper aspect ratios. Ensure the main video and PiP video render correctly without performance issues. Score 0 if PiP display is not implemented, 5 if basic implementation but with rendering glitches, 10 if fully functional with smooth rendering.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the customization controls for PiP size and position properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check for interactive UI elements that allow users to resize (using handles or numeric inputs) and reposition (drag-and-drop or coordinate inputs) the PiP video. Verify that changes apply in real-time during preview. Deduct 5 points if only one type of customization is available, 3 points if the controls are unintuitive, 10 points if fully implemented with responsive feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the video export functionality working correctly?",
+      "description": "Analyze whether the code includes proper video compositing and export capabilities using WebCodecs API, FFmpeg.js, or server-side processing. Check if it handles different video codecs and preserves quality settings. Verify if progress indicators are provided during export. Deduct 5 points if export quality is poor, 5 points if no format options are available, and 10 points if fully functional with multiple output options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as incompatible video formats, browser compatibility issues, memory constraints with large videos, 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 filters or effects for either video 2. Transition effects for PiP appearance/disappearance 3. Timeline editor for controlling when PiP appears). 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 video processing functions 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Resource-heavy 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 video processing logic/UI/export modules), 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). Check if video controls are intuitive and follow standard conventions. 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 video playback and editing controls respond appropriately: 1) Preview updates occur within 100ms of adjustment 2) Smooth transitions when resizing/moving PiP window 3) Clear visual feedback during drag operations. Check if the video scrubbing is smooth and if the video playback synchronization between main and PiP videos is maintained. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy video rendering during editing, 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"
+}