@getollie/cli 0.0.1

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 604,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Develop a video resolution conversion tool that supports converting uploaded videos to specified resolutions (maintaining aspect ratio), provides intelligent upscaling algorithm options (such as bicubic interpolation), and can batch process multiple video files.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core video resolution conversion functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements the essential video conversion functionality with proper libraries (FFmpeg, OpenCV, etc.). Check if it maintains aspect ratio during conversion and supports standard resolutions (720p, 1080p, 4K). Score 0 if conversion functionality is missing, 5 if basic conversion exists but without aspect ratio preservation, and 10 if all requirements are properly implemented with progress tracking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are multiple upscaling algorithm options provided?",
+      "description": "Verify implementation of different upscaling algorithms (bicubic, bilinear, Lanczos, AI-based like ESRGAN). Check if the code allows users to select algorithms and includes proper documentation about each algorithm's strengths. Deduct 3 points if only one algorithm is implemented, 5 points if algorithms are implemented but without proper comparison information, and 10 points if multiple algorithms with preview capability are available.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the batch processing functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code supports processing multiple videos simultaneously or in sequence. Check for queue management, progress tracking per file, and ability to cancel/pause the batch process. Deduct 5 points if batch processing exists but without proper status reporting, 3 points if it lacks pause/resume capability. Full score of 10 if it includes all features with efficient resource management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a user-friendly interface for video upload and parameter configuration?",
+      "description": "Assess if the interface provides drag-and-drop functionality, multiple file selection, preview thumbnails, and intuitive parameter controls (resolution selection, algorithm choice, output format). Deduct 3 points for missing upload progress indicators, 3 points for lack of input validation, and 4 points for unintuitive parameter controls. Full 10 points requires responsive design with mobile compatibility.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common exceptions (corrupt video files, unsupported formats, insufficient disk space, memory limitations during processing). Check for graceful error handling with user-friendly messages and recovery options. Code with strong robustness should validate inputs and provide detailed logging. Give 10 points if all scenarios are handled, 5 for partial handling, 0 if critical errors crash the application.",
+      "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 of different algorithms 2. Smart resolution recommendation based on content analysis 3. Automated batch profiles for different target devices). 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 conversion pipelines) 2. Function modules unrelated to video processing (e.g., a built-in media player with features beyond preview) 3. Resource-intensive features 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 (separation of UI/conversion logic/file handling), error handling patterns, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization is implemented for large video processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern 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) Operation feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual progress indicators during conversion. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jumpy progress indicators, and 5 points for interface freezing during processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-speed-adjustment-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 512,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure that the generated code can be executed as demonstrated. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I am providing you with a software development requirement description, and I need you to generate project code according to these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help the user generate complete project code with simple and understandable comments. Don't output anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You should always generate complete and runnable project code. Please ensure 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, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDevelop a video speed adjustment tool where users can upload video files and set the video playback speed (fast or slow) using a slider. Finally, export a video file with the applied speed change.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload functionality correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the application properly allows users to upload video files. Evaluate if the code handles different video formats (MP4, WebM, AVI, etc.), implements file size validation, and provides clear error handling for unsupported formats. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload with limited format support is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive upload with proper validation and error handling is provided.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the video playback speed adjustment feature properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess if the slider for speed adjustment is correctly implemented and effectively controls the playback rate. Check if the code supports a reasonable range of speeds (e.g., 0.25x to 4x) and updates the video playback in real-time as the slider moves. Deduct 3 points if the slider doesn't provide smooth transitions, 5 points if speed changes don't apply in real-time during preview, and 3 points if the range is too limited. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the video export functionality working as expected?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the application can successfully export videos with the modified playback speed. Check if the code uses MediaRecorder API or another appropriate method to generate the new video file, maintains original video quality, and provides progress indicators during processing. Score 0 if export is not implemented, 5 if basic export works but has quality issues or lacks progress indication, and 10 if export is fully functional with proper quality preservation and user feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the user interface intuitive and responsive?",
+      "description": "Review the user interface design for the video speed adjustment tool. Check if all essential controls (upload button, playback controls, speed slider, export button) are clearly visible and properly positioned. Assess if the interface provides immediate visual feedback for user interactions and is responsive across different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each critical UI element that's difficult to find, 5 points for lack of responsive design, and 3 points for missing visual feedback. 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 corrupted video files, browser compatibility issues, memory constraints for large files, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Video preview thumbnails at different speeds 2. Audio pitch correction when changing speed 3. Batch processing for multiple videos 4. Ability to apply variable speed to different segments of the video). 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 task) 2. Function modules unrelated to video speed adjustment (e.g., unnecessary image filters) 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 video processing/UI/data management layers), code reusability, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization techniques are implemented for video processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern 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) Video playback controls respond within 100ms 2) Smooth transitions when adjusting speed 3) Clear visual indication of processing state during export. Deduct 5 points for laggy video playback, 3 points for jerky slider movement, and 5 points for lack of loading indicators during processing operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-speed-curve-editor-with-audio-pitch.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 673,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable whenever possible. Implement a video speed curve editor where users can create custom speed curves (normal range 0.1x-4x), set multiple keyframe speed values on a timeline, and generate dynamically variable-speed videos while maintaining the original audio pitch.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the timeline and keyframe system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a timeline interface with keyframe insertion, manipulation, and deletion. Check if users can place keyframes at specific time points and assign speed values (0.1x-4x) to them. Score 0 if the timeline system is not implemented, 5 if basic keyframe placement exists but lacks editing capabilities, and 10 if the system allows complete keyframe management with visual feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the speed curve interpolation functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements proper interpolation between keyframes (linear, bezier, etc.) to create smooth speed transitions. Check if the interpolation algorithm correctly calculates intermediate speed values between keyframes. Deduct 5 points if only linear interpolation is available, 3 points if the curve visualization doesn't match actual playback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the video processing engine capable of applying variable speed changes?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the implementation can actually modify video playback speed according to the defined curve. Check if it handles frame rate adjustments, frame dropping/duplication, or time remapping techniques. Deduct 5 points if the solution only supports constant speed segments rather than continuous variable speed, and 3 points if speed transitions cause visual artifacts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is audio pitch preservation implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code includes algorithms for time-stretching audio without pitch shifting (like phase vocoder, WSOLA, or elastique). Check whether the implementation preserves the original audio pitch even when video speed changes. Deduct 5 points if pitch preservation is only partially implemented, 8 points if audio becomes distorted during significant speed changes. 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 video formats, out-of-range speed values, keyframe conflicts, 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 of speed changes 2. Speed curve templates/presets 3. Export capability with different quality 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 speed calculation algorithms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video speed editing (e.g., excessive filtering options) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 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 UI logic/video processing/audio processing 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) Timeline scrubbing response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Keyframe manipulation with immediate visual feedback 3) Clear visual indication of current playback position and speed. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy timeline interactions, and 5 points for unintuitive curve manipulation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-subtitle-editor-with-timeline-export.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 587,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable whenever possible. Develop a video subtitle adding tool that allows users to upload videos and add multiple text captions using timeline markers. The tool should support customization of font, color, and position. Subtitles should include semi-transparent background boxes, and users should be able to export the final video with embedded subtitles.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload and processing functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete video upload system with proper file type validation, progress indicators, and error handling. Check if it supports common video formats (MP4, WebM, MOV) and handles large files efficiently with chunked uploads. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or progress indicators, and 10 if all aspects are properly implemented with appropriate feedback to users.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are timeline markers and subtitle positioning systems fully functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the timeline interface allows precise timestamp marking for subtitle entry/exit points with millisecond accuracy. Check if the code implements visual indicators on the timeline, draggable markers, and preview capabilities. For positioning, verify that the system allows subtitles to be placed anywhere on the video canvas with x/y coordinates or predefined positions (bottom center, top left, etc.). Deduct 5 points if the timeline lacks fine-grained control or visual feedback, and 3 points if positioning options are limited. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is text styling and background customization comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code provides complete font customization (family, size, weight, style), color selection with opacity controls, and semi-transparent background boxes with adjustable opacity, padding, and corner radius. Verify that the implementation includes live preview of style changes. Deduct 3 points if font options are limited, 3 points if color selection lacks opacity control, and 4 points if background customization is missing or incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the video export functionality with embedded subtitles properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements client-side or server-side rendering of the final video with permanently embedded subtitles. Check if it provides progress indication during rendering, maintains original video quality, and offers format/quality options. Evaluate if the solution handles subtitle rendering accurately according to timeline markers. Deduct 5 points if the export function uses temporary overlays instead of permanent embedding, 3 points if quality/format options are missing, and 2 points if progress indication is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as incompatible video formats, browser compatibility issues, network interruptions during upload/export, and encoding errors) 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 subtitle generation from audio 2. Subtitle templates with animations 3. Multi-language subtitle track support 4. Automatic text timing based on speech detection). 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 text rendering engines) 2. Function modules unrelated to subtitle editing (e.g., excessive video editing tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the interface). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing/subtitle rendering/UI components), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (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) Video scrubbing response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Timeline marker operations respond immediately 3) Text editing updates preview in real-time. Deduct 5 points for laggy video timeline navigation, 3 points for delayed text preview updates, and 5 points for non-intuitive subtitle positioning controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-subtitle-generation-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 670,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Create a subtitle generation tool where users can upload videos and add corresponding subtitle text based on provided timestamps. Support customization of font, color, and size. Subtitles should display synchronously during video playback and can be exported together with the video.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload and processing functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements video file upload with proper format validation (MP4, WebM, AVI, etc.), file size restrictions, and progress indicators. Check if video metadata extraction (duration, resolution, frame rate) is correctly implemented and displayed. Score 0 if basic upload is not working, 5 if only simple upload without validation is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive upload with metadata processing and error handling is fully included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the timestamp-based subtitle synchronization system implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the subtitle timing system includes accurate timestamp parsing, real-time synchronization with video playback, and frame-accurate positioning. Evaluate if the code handles subtitle display/hide transitions smoothly and supports common subtitle formats (SRT, VTT). Deduct 5 points if synchronization drift exceeds 100ms, and 3 points if subtitle overlap handling is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the subtitle customization interface designed with comprehensive options?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the customization system provides real-time preview of font family selection, size adjustment (with proper scaling), color picker with transparency support, and positioning controls. Check if text styling options include bold, italic, outline, and shadow effects. Deduct 3 points if font rendering is inconsistent across browsers, and 5 points if real-time preview is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the video export functionality with embedded subtitles constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes video processing capabilities to permanently embed subtitles into the video file, maintaining original quality and supporting multiple output formats. Evaluate if the export process includes progress tracking, quality options, and batch processing capabilities. Deduct 5 points if subtitles are only overlaid without proper encoding, and 3 points if export progress feedback is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with multiple format support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted video files, invalid timestamp formats, memory limitations during processing, 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. Auto-subtitle generation using speech recognition 2. Multi-language subtitle support with translation 3. Subtitle template library with preset styles 4. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient editing 5. Waveform visualization for audio timing). 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 subtitle generation (e.g., built-in video editing tools) 3. Heavy processing that affects performance (e.g., unnecessary real-time video filters). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core subtitle 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/subtitle engine/UI layers), error handling patterns, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if memory leaks are found in video processing or DOM manipulation; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper cleanup of video resources is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Clean timeline interface with clear timestamp markers 2) Intuitive drag-and-drop subtitle positioning 3) Professional video player controls with subtitle preview 4) Consistent spacing and typography (following 8px grid system). Deduct 3 points for each confusing UI element, 5 points for poor contrast in subtitle preview, and 5 points for cluttered timeline or control panels. 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) Video playback controls respond within 100ms 2) Subtitle appearance/disappearance transitions are smooth (200-300ms) 3) Timeline scrubbing provides immediate visual feedback 4) Export progress updates smoothly without UI freezing. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for choppy video playback during subtitle editing, and 5 points for unresponsive timeline controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-timeline-bookmark-marking-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 662,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that the code you generate is executable for display. Develop a video timeline marking tool that allows users to add bookmark tags on the video timeline, attach text notes and thumbnails to each bookmark, support quick navigation through bookmarks, and export project files containing all marking information.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video player functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code creates a functional HTML5 video player that includes standard controls (play/pause, volume, fullscreen) and implements a custom timeline with proper event handling. The player should support common video formats (MP4, WebM) and handle video loading errors gracefully. Score 0 if no functional video player exists, 5 if only basic playback works, and 10 for a complete implementation with error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the bookmark tagging system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code allows users to create, edit, and delete bookmarks at specific timestamps on the video timeline. Bookmarks should be visually displayed on the timeline with proper positioning according to their timestamps. Deduct 5 points if bookmark creation is buggy, 3 points if bookmark positioning is inaccurate, and 2 points if editing functionality is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are text notes and thumbnails properly attached to bookmarks?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements functionality to add text notes to bookmarks and automatically generates thumbnails for each bookmark. Notes should be editable and thumbnails should accurately represent the video frame at the bookmark timestamp. Deduct 5 points if thumbnails aren't generated or are of poor quality, and 5 points if text note functionality is missing or incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is bookmark navigation and project export functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code implements quick navigation between bookmarks (clicking on a bookmark should seek the video to that timestamp) and allows exporting/importing project files containing all marking information (timestamps, notes, thumbnails). Deduct 5 points if navigation is not smooth or has bugs, and 5 points if export/import functionality is missing or incomplete. 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 video formats, large video files, concurrent bookmark operations, 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. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient marking 2. Color-coding for different types of bookmarks 3. Timeline zooming for precision marking). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to create bookmarks that confuse users) 2. Function modules unrelated to video marking (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the interface). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video player/bookmark management/UI components), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (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) Bookmark creation response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animations when navigating between bookmarks controlled between 200-400ms 3) Clear visual indication of current bookmark and playback position. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky timeline scrolling, and 5 points for confusing navigation between bookmarks. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-timeline-chapter-editor.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 486,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional replies. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable and demonstrable.\n\n## Role ##\nYou are an experienced code expert. I am providing you with a software development requirement description and asking you to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code that is fully commented with simple, easy-to-understand language, 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. Ensure all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code.\n3. Before final output, carefully review and check all code and evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated.\n4. If the requirements include external API access or require user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data.\n\n## Project Requirements Description ##\nPlease develop a video timeline marker and chapter editor. After users upload a video, they can add multiple markers and chapter divisions on the timeline. Each marker can have a title and description, forming a video chapter table of contents. Support quick navigation to corresponding video positions through the table of contents, and allow exporting video files containing chapter information or separate chapter metadata files (such as VTT format), to enable chapter navigation on various playback platforms.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly implements video file upload with validation for supported formats (mp4, webm, etc.), file size limits, and error handling. The upload process should include a progress indicator and gracefully handle interruptions. Score 0 if video upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists without proper validation, and 10 if complete with format checking, progress tracking, and error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the timeline marker system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code allows users to add, edit, delete, and visualize markers on the video timeline. Each marker should store timestamp, title, and description. The markers should be visually distinct on the timeline and clickable for navigation. Deduct 3 points if markers cannot be edited, 3 points if visual representation is unclear, and 4 points if navigation to markers doesn't work correctly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the chapter division functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code enables users to create logical chapters by setting start/end times or connecting markers. Chapters should be visually represented on the timeline with distinct boundaries and be editable (rename, merge, split, delete). Score 0 if chapter creation isn't implemented, 5 if basic functionality exists but lacks editing capabilities, and 10 if the feature is complete with intuitive visualization and full editing support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the export functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code supports exporting chapter metadata in standard formats (VTT, JSON, etc.) and/or embedding chapter information in video files. The exported data should correctly maintain all timestamp information and metadata. Deduct 5 points if only one export format is supported, 3 points if the exported files contain formatting errors, and 5 points if the export process is not user-friendly. 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 video formats, browser compatibility issues, timestamp conflicts, 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 chapter detection 2. Real-time collaborative editing 3. Customizable chapter thumbnails 4. Keyboard shortcuts for quick marking). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to create markers that overlap in functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to video timeline marking (e.g., a built-in image editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during timeline operations). 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/data management 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) Timeline scrubbing response ≤ 100ms 2) Marker creation feedback within 200ms 3) Clear visual indication when navigating between chapters. Deduct 5 points for laggy timeline interactions, 3 points for delayed feedback when adding/editing markers, and 5 points for unclear or confusing navigation between chapters. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-to-gif-converter-platform.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 688,
+  "question": "You are a code expert; please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I will provide you with a software development requirement description, and you need 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 should always generate complete runnable project code, please ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code\n3. Before the final output, carefully review and check all code to evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION ========\nDesign an online platform that can be used to convert videos to GIF animation files. After uploading a video, users can select the start and end times, and adjust the output GIF's resolution and frame rate, preview the generated effect in real-time, and download the final file.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video to GIF conversion core functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements the complete pipeline from video uploading to GIF generation. This includes video loading, time segment selection, conversion processing, and download functionality.Score 0 if conversion functionality is missing, 5 if basic conversion works but with limitations, and 10 if the full pipeline works seamlessly with proper error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are all required customization parameters implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify the implementation of all required customization options: start/end time selection, resolution adjustment, and frame rate control. Check if these parameters properly affect the output GIF.Deduct 2 points for each missing parameter. Deduct 3 points if parameters don't effectively impact the output. Full score requires intuitive UI controls for each parameter with appropriate ranges and defaults.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the real-time preview functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the solution provides real-time or near-real-time preview of the GIF based on the current parameter settings. Check if previews update when parameters change.Score 0 if preview is missing, 5 if preview exists but isn't responsive to parameter changes, and 10 if preview accurately reflects all parameter changes within 2 seconds of adjustment.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the download functionality complete and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Check if the generated GIF can be properly downloaded, with appropriate file naming, quality preservation, and progress indication during processing.Deduct 3 points if download doesn't work reliably, 2 points if no progress indication is provided, and 2 points if file naming is not handled properly. Full score requires proper content disposition and mime types.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, large files, browser limitations, processing errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms.Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Batch processing 2. Additional filters/effects for GIFs 3. Social sharing capabilities 4. GIF optimization options).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 2. Function modules unrelated to video-to-GIF conversion 3. Fancy effects that affect performance and load times.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/file handling layers), error handling, performance optimization, and build process automation.Deduct 3 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 4 points if the processing is inefficient or unoptimized. 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 2) Proper layout spacing 3) Professional font system 4) Intuitive video timeline representation.Deduct 2 points for each crowded visual element, 3 points for poor color combinations, 3 points for chaotic layout, and 2 points for unintuitive time selection controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the platform responsive and cross-browser compatible?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the platform works across different screen sizes and major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge), and whether it provides appropriate loading states during processing.Deduct 2.5 points for each major browser with compatibility issues, 3 points for poor mobile/tablet adaptation, and 2 points for missing loading indicators or progress feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}