@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/utility_tools-batch_processing/eml-to-pdf-converter-webpage-girlish-design.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1293,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. You are a web design master, please help me design a webpage for batch converting EML format files to PDF format files and downloading them in a package. The webpage interface should have a girlish feel and be in HTML format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload mechanism fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a robust file upload mechanism that can handle multiple EML files, with proper validation for file types, file size limits, and visual feedback on upload progress. Score 0 if the upload functionality is not implemented, 5 if basic file upload exists without validation, and 10 if it includes drag-and-drop support, multiple file selection, and proper error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the EML to PDF conversion functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes a working client-side or server-side mechanism to convert EML files to PDF format. Evaluate if it correctly parses and renders EML headers, body text, formatting, and attachments in the resulting PDFs. Deduct 5 points if attachments are not handled, 3 points if HTML emails render poorly, and 5 points if the conversion fails on complex EML structures. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the batch processing system designed effectively?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can process multiple files in parallel or sequentially with proper progress tracking. Look for features like a processing queue, pause/resume functionality, and handling of failed conversions. Deduct 5 points if there's no batch progress indication, 3 points if the system processes only one file at a time without queuing, and 5 points if it lacks error recovery for failed conversions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the download package mechanism correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly creates and offers a packaged download (ZIP) of all converted PDF files, with appropriate naming conventions and metadata preservation. Evaluate whether it handles large file sizes with streaming or chunking. Deduct 5 points if there's no bulk download option, 3 points if file names are not preserved properly, and 5 points if the system fails to handle downloads over 100MB effectively. 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 corrupt EML files, browser limitations, memory constraints, 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. Preview of converted PDFs before download 2. Customizable PDF templates or styling options 3. Automatic email content extraction and organization). 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 libraries loaded) 2. Function modules unrelated to EML-to-PDF conversion (e.g., unnecessary social media integrations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the 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/conversion logic/file handling layers), error handling quality, and build process 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 the build process is not optimized for web performance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet the 'girlish feel' requirement and professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design successfully incorporates a 'girlish feel' while maintaining professional functionality: 1) Appropriate color palette (soft pastels, pinks, purples) 2) Feminine design elements (rounded corners, decorative icons, delicate typography) 3) Professional layout (clear hierarchy, proper spacing, responsive design). Deduct 3 points for masculine or overly corporate visual elements, 5 points for a design that sacrifices usability for aesthetics, and 5 points for inconsistent application of the 'girlish' theme. 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 status feedback is clear and immediate 2) Transitions and animations enhance rather than hinder the user experience 3) Clear visual guidance through the conversion and download process. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring or intrusive animations, and 5 points for confusing navigation or workflow. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Batch Processing",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-batch_processing/excel-to-html-converter-ui.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 918,
+  "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. Please output this Excel file to an HTML file with an aesthetically pleasing UI interface.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Excel-to-HTML conversion functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately parses the Excel data structure, handles cell formatting (including borders, backgrounds, text alignment, merged cells), and properly converts it to HTML. Score 0 if no parser is implemented, 5 if basic tabular data is shown without formatting, and 10 if the full Excel structure with formatting is preserved.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are all essential Excel features properly rendered in HTML?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code handles critical Excel features such as formulas, data types (text, numbers, dates), conditional formatting, and cell styles. Deduct 3 points if formulas aren't calculated properly, 3 points if data types aren't preserved, and 3 points if conditional formatting is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the solution responsive and compatible across browsers?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the HTML output adapts to different screen sizes and renders consistently across major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge). The solution should use responsive design principles and include appropriate CSS media queries. Deduct 3 points for each major browser compatibility issue, and 5 points if the design breaks on mobile devices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the solution handle large datasets efficiently?",
+      "description": "Test whether the code efficiently handles large Excel files without causing performance issues. Look for techniques like lazy loading, virtualization for large datasets, or pagination. Deduct 5 points if the solution slows down significantly with moderate-sized tables (>500 rows), and 10 points if it crashes with large datasets. 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 malformed Excel files, missing data, invalid cell references, 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. Interactive sorting/filtering capabilities 2. Search functionality within the table 3. Export back to Excel or CSV 4. Print-friendly version). 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 parsing logic (e.g., multiple ways to handle the same Excel feature) 2. Function modules unrelated to Excel-to-HTML conversion (e.g., added image galleries) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating parsing logic/rendering/styling layers), code reusability, and clear documentation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's inadequate documentation or comments. 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) Scroll performance at 60fps 2) Hover/selection states provide clear feedback 3) Loading indicators for data processing. Deduct 5 points for jerky scrolling, 3 points for missing state indicators, and 5 points for unresponsive UI during data operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Batch Processing",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-batch_processing/file-format-conversion-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 508,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure any code you generate is executable and demonstrable.\n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You will be provided with a software development requirement description, and you are required to generate project code according to 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, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit 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 requirement involves external API access or requires user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nImplement a file format conversion tool that supports common file format conversions, such as PDF to Word, image format conversion, etc. After users upload files and select the target format, the tool will convert and provide a download link.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete file upload system that handles multiple file formats, includes proper MIME type validation, and manages file size limits. Check for proper error handling during the upload process (network issues, timeouts, etc.). Score 0 if file upload is missing, 5 if basic upload is implemented but lacks validation, and 10 if the upload system is robust with progress indicators and proper validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the format conversion functionality comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the code supports a diverse range of file format conversions as required (PDF to Word, image format conversions, etc.). Check if the conversion logic is properly implemented with appropriate libraries/tools. Deduct 2 points for each major format conversion missing from the requirements. Deduct 5 points if conversion quality options are not available. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the download system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code generates proper download links for converted files, implements appropriate security measures (such as expiring links or authentication), and handles large file downloads efficiently. Check if download progress is displayed to the user. Score 0 if download functionality is missing, 5 if basic download is available without security considerations, and 10 if a complete, secure download system is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper error handling and conversion status feedback?",
+      "description": "Evaluate how the application handles conversion errors, provides status updates during conversion processes, and communicates issues to users. Check for the presence of conversion job queuing for large files or batch processing. Deduct 5 points if error messages are generic/unhelpful, and 5 points if there's no real-time status feedback during conversion. 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 files, unsupported formats, conversion failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Batch conversion capability 2. Preview of conversion results before download 3. Conversion history management). 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 handling libraries for the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to file conversion (e.g., built-in social sharing that's not requested) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during file 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/conversion logic/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) Upload/conversion feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for the conversion workflow. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual hiccups during file processing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Batch Processing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-batch_processing/file-watermarking-system-with-customizable-options.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 528,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable whenever possible. Create a file watermarking system where users can upload documents, images, and other files, and set watermark text. The watermark position and transparency level should be adjustable according to user preferences.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements secure file upload handling with proper validation for file types, size limits, and error handling. Check if it supports multiple file formats as required (documents, images, etc.), and handles upload progress indication. Score 0 if file upload is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload is supported without validation, and 10 if comprehensive upload with all security measures and support for multiple formats is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the watermark text application functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code properly implements text watermarking for different file types (text for documents, visual text for images). Check if it allows custom text input with proper sanitization and supports various text formatting options (font, size, color). Deduct 5 points if watermarking doesn't work for all specified file types, and 3 points if text formatting options are limited. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the watermark positioning controls properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code provides UI controls for adjusting watermark position (e.g., top-left, center, bottom-right, custom coordinates). Check if the positioning works correctly across different file types and maintains proper alignment on resize/rotation. Deduct 5 points if only predefined positions are available without custom positioning, and 3 points if positioning behaves inconsistently across file types. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the transparency adjustment feature well implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes controls for adjusting watermark transparency/opacity with proper visual feedback. Check if the transparency settings are applied correctly to the watermark without affecting the original content. Deduct 5 points if the transparency control lacks fine adjustment (e.g., only few preset levels), and 3 points if the visual preview doesn't match the final output. 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, excessively large files, failed uploads, browser compatibility issues) 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 watermarking with queue processing 2. Real-time watermark preview before applying 3. Watermark templates system for easy reuse). 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 set the same watermark property) 2. Function modules unrelated to file watermarking (e.g., unnecessary file editing tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during watermark application). 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 logic/watermark 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) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for watermark controls. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during adjustment of watermark properties, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Batch Processing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-batch_processing/html-convert-png-to-pdf.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1664,
+  "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. Help me write an HTML file that can convert PNG files to PDF format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the PNG to PDF conversion functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core conversion functionality, including file selection, image processing, and PDF generation. Score 0 if the conversion logic is absent, 5 if only partial conversion is implemented (e.g., only file selection works), and 10 if the complete PNG to PDF pipeline is functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the file input mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides a proper file input system with support for PNG file filtering, multiple file selection, and validation. Deduct 3 points if the input doesn't filter for PNG files, 3 points if it lacks multiple file selection when appropriate, and 2 points if there's no file validation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the PDF generation process correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the PDF generation uses proper libraries (like jsPDF, PDF.js, or appropriate APIs), maintains image quality during conversion, and handles page formatting. Deduct 5 points if image quality is significantly degraded, 3 points if page formatting options are missing, and 5 points if the PDF cannot be downloaded. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the solution handle large files and memory management?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the implementation addresses memory concerns when dealing with large PNG files, includes progress indication for lengthy operations, and implements strategies like chunking or streaming for large files. Deduct 5 points if there's no memory management strategy, 3 points if it lacks progress indication, and 5 points if it fails with larger images. 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, conversion failures, browser compatibility issues) 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. Preview of PNG files before conversion 2. PDF customization options like page size, orientation, margins 3. Batch processing with progress indicators). 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 PDF generation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to PNG to PDF conversion (e.g., unrelated image filters) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/conversion logic/error handling), code maintainability, and appropriate use of web standards. 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 modern web standards are ignored. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Visual indication during conversion process 3) Clear visual guidance for the workflow. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for lack of state indication during processing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Batch Processing",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-batch_processing/javascript-convert-msg-to-html-browser.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1234,
+  "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. How can I use two JavaScript libraries, enjiuno/msg-reader and rtf-stream-parser, to convert an Outlook Item File (.msg) to HTML in a browser? This is my first question, please provide me with a complete demo code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the MSG to HTML conversion functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements the core conversion from .msg to HTML using both libraries (enjiuno/msg-reader and rtf-stream-parser). Check if the solution properly extracts email content, attachments, header information, and formats them into proper HTML. Score 0 if conversion is not implemented, 5 if basic text extraction works but formatting is lost, and 10 if the conversion preserves formatting, images, and structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the browser-side file handling properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements proper browser file handling mechanisms, including file input, drag-and-drop support, MIME type validation, and efficient file reading. Verify if the solution uses FileReader API appropriately and handles different file sizes gracefully. Deduct 5 points if there's no file validation, 3 points if large files cause UI freezing without any loading indicators. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the dependencies properly integrated?",
+      "description": "Assess how well the two libraries (enjiuno/msg-reader and rtf-stream-parser) are integrated. Check for proper import/require statements, version compatibility, error handling when libraries fail to load, and appropriate use of their APIs. Deduct 5 points if library integration requires server-side proxies without explanation, and 3 points if browser compatibility issues aren't addressed. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the HTML output properly sanitized and rendered?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the generated HTML is properly sanitized to prevent XSS attacks, and if it's correctly rendered in the browser. Check if email-specific elements (like headers, signatures, quotes) are semantically structured. Deduct 5 points if no sanitization is performed, 3 points if HTML emails display broken layouts. Check if CSS is included for proper styling and consistent rendering across browsers. 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 .msg files, corrupted data, memory constraints, parsing 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. Preview mode for attachments 2. Contact card extraction and display 3. Email thread visualization). 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 parsing methods for the same content) 2. Function modules unrelated to MSG-to-HTML conversion (e.g., a built-in PDF viewer) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 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 parsing logic/view/file handling layers), error handling coverage, 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 there are no performance optimizations for large files. 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) Progress indicator during conversion 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between file selection and display, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Batch Processing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-batch_processing/product-group-segmentation-copy-button.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1004,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the generated code executable for display. B0CQN3B1T4\n\nGroup 1:\nB0CQ4K785J\nB0CRKQX8S2\nB0DTGMSBKS\n\nGroup 2:\nB0DNZ77K3Y\nB0DNZ77K3Y\nB0CQX5YXHM\nB0B9X3LKPR\nB0CLV97RSQ\nB0CQT38R7B\nB0DS9V94DD\n\nGroup 3:\nB0DP93KHJC\nB0DPX8XJWG\nB0DM28MFX7\nB0DM28MFX7\nB0B8D38LWT\nB0DP94R31Z\nB0BLN497RX\nB0CQFQWBGQ\nB0CQFQWBGQ\nB0CQJDBR4K\nB0CS356ZQ5\nB0CNS33YLC\n\nGroup 4:\nB0BRSNPQNM\nB0BRSNPQNM\nB0DP71X8W6\nB0BPWY8JSF\nB0BPWY8JSF\nB0BPWY8JSF\nB0DWNFX8VF\nB0DPLXDGMR\nB0DPLXDGMR\nB09PDFGWZK\nB0CRR83RCS\n\nGroup 5:\nB0DQ4NB8R7\nB0BQM4WT5Z\nB0BN917PN3\nB0CR5WP5KN\nB0DRFH2QX9\nB0BRK7L9WH\nB082WN6V2Y\nB0BQ2VKDV5\nB0CP5N3W87\nB0CQLR3YHM\nB0CNRQZLCW\n\nGroup 6:\nB0DPWYYRWF\nB0DPWYYRWF\nB0DPWYYRWF\nB0CR3K8XRZ\nB0CRKNVCBX\nB0DPS3G45L\nB0DQ8296FK\nB0BVDJGTZG\nB0CNLTMGPY\nB08LQWYLPC\nB0CNLV27QQ\n\nGroup 7:\nB0DQGW54XQ\nB0CMR63971\nB0CQYWZTC9\nB0DYTX3DBK\nB0BRMG97NR\n\nGroup 8:\nB0C3XT7NQL\nB0DNYKWXFB\nB09J23CMG1\nB0BNC353VX\nB0CF8G5FLR\nB0834J93YM\nB0CPLY1NNB\nB0CNSWLNSF\nB0DQ1ZNCHF\nB0CR37G53Z\nB0BJK1CM87\n\nGroup 9:\nB0CQX8F8S3\nB0CSF6JZ3V\nB0DPFSK3X1\nB0DK3N6ZPX\nB0CSWD7CRJ\nB0BRK834Q8\nB0DKJL68YG\n\nDivide the code into groups of 11 without repeating groups. Each group should have a \"Copy\" button after it.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the code grouping requirement accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code correctly divides the provided alphanumeric codes into exactly 11 groups without repeating any group. Each group must be distinct, and the solution should handle the original data which contains duplicates within groups. Deduct 5 points for incorrect grouping logic, 5 points if duplicates are not handled properly, and 5 points if there aren't exactly 11 groups.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the 'Copy' button functionality implemented for each group?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if each group has a working 'Copy' button that properly copies the content of that specific group to the clipboard. The button should provide visual feedback when clicked. Deduct 5 points if some groups lack copy buttons, 5 points if the buttons don't actually copy the correct content, and 3 points if there's no user feedback after clicking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the HTML structure logically organized for the grouping task?",
+      "description": "Check if the HTML structure properly separates the different groups using appropriate semantic elements (like <section>, <article>, or <div> with proper classes). The structure should facilitate CSS styling and JavaScript functionality. Check if the groups are clearly delineated visually. Deduct 5 points for poor semantic structure and 5 points for groups that lack clear visual separation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the clipboard API implementation robust?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the clipboard functionality uses modern APIs (navigator.clipboard) with appropriate fallbacks for browser compatibility. The implementation should handle potential permission issues and failures gracefully. Deduct 5 points if no fallback mechanism exists, 5 points if errors aren't handled, and 2 points if no visual feedback is provided for success/failure states.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty groups, special characters in codes, and browser clipboard restrictions) and provides 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. Group search/filter functionality 2. Sorting options for alphanumeric codes 3. Visual indication of duplicates in original groups). 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 implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple copy mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to the grouping task (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance. 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 data processing/UI rendering/user interaction), code reusability, and maintainability. 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 solution is overly complex for this straightforward task. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for the copy buttons. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-find copy buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Batch Processing",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-batch_processing/react-streamsaver-download-videos.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 232,
+  "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 for demonstration. React 16.8 using StreamSaver to download videos.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the React 16.8+ integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code uses React hooks correctly (useState, useEffect, useRef) and follows React 16.8+ best practices. Check that functional components are properly structured with appropriate dependency arrays in useEffect hooks to prevent memory leaks. Score 0 if hooks are misused, 5 if basic implementation is correct but with minor issues, and 10 if the implementation follows all React best practices including proper cleanup functions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the StreamSaver library correctly implemented for video downloads?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the StreamSaver library is properly imported, configured, and utilized. Check for correct stream handling, proper MIME types for video, and browser compatibility considerations. Deduct 5 points if the implementation doesn't handle different video formats, and 3 points if it lacks error handling for streams. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the video download functionality complete and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes progress indicators, file name customization, download cancellation options, and visual feedback during download. Verify that the implementation handles both small and large video files efficiently. Deduct 3 points if progress indication is missing, 5 points if there's no error handling for failed downloads, and 2 points if file naming is not user-configurable. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are browser compatibility issues and polyfills properly addressed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code accounts for browser differences in StreamSaver support, implements necessary polyfills, and provides fallback mechanisms for unsupported browsers. Verify detection of browser capabilities and graceful degradation. Deduct 5 points if polyfills are missing for major browsers, and 5 points if no fallback mechanism exists. 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 network interruptions, file system permission issues, large file handling, memory limitations, etc.) and provides friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should handle these edge cases effectively, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Video preview before download 2. Batch downloading capability 3. Download speed throttling for bandwidth management). 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 download functions 2. Function modules unrelated to video downloading (e.g., unrelated media processing) 3. Heavy dependencies that could be avoided with simpler implementations. 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 download logic from UI components), proper state management, code reusability, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state is overused when component state would suffice; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if proper error boundaries aren't implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI design follows modern principles: 1) Clear and accessible download buttons (minimum touch target 44×44px) 2) Informative download status indicators 3) Consistent styling with the rest of the application. Deduct 3 points for unclear call-to-action elements, 5 points for insufficient download status feedback, and 5 points for accessibility issues (e.g., poor contrast ratios). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the download experience conforms to user expectations: 1) Download initiation within 100ms of user action 2) Smooth progress indication without UI freezing 3) Clear completion notification with next steps. Deduct 5 points if the UI freezes during download operations, 3 points for jarring transitions between download states, and 5 points for missing feedback when downloads complete or fail. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Batch Processing",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}