@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/web_applications-communication/livekit-vue3-audio-video-conferencing.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 297,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Develop a web-based audio and video conferencing software using LiveKit with Vue 3.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the LiveKit integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements LiveKit SDK integration with Vue 3, including proper initialization, room connection, token handling, and participant management. Score 0 if LiveKit is not implemented at all, 5 if basic connection is established but with issues, and 10 if the integration follows LiveKit best practices with proper error handling and configuration.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is real-time audio/video communication functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the application implements core audio/video features: audio/video toggling, device selection, participant grid view, screen sharing, and audio level indicators. Deduct 2 points for each missing core feature. Evaluate if the application handles camera/microphone permissions properly and provides fallback mechanisms when devices are unavailable. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the Vue 3 architecture properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code leverages Vue 3's Composition API effectively, using reactive state management, computed properties, and lifecycle hooks appropriately. Check for proper component structure, state isolation, and event handling patterns. Deduct 5 points if using outdated Vue 2 patterns, 3 points if component composition is chaotic, and 5 points if reactive primitives are misused. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are advanced LiveKit features implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess implementation of advanced LiveKit features such as: adaptive streaming quality based on network conditions, simulcast support, connection quality indicators, server-side recording options, and breakout room functionality. Award 2 points for each advanced feature properly implemented (maximum 10 points). Implementation should follow LiveKit's recommended architectural patterns.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, device permission denials, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI background noise suppression 2. Virtual backgrounds with blur option 3. Real-time transcription or translation). 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 handle participant state) 2. Function modules unrelated to conferencing (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that impact video quality). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/business logic/API layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/login-page-image-left-responsive-layout.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 771,
+  "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 purposes. Help me create a login page with an image on the left side and login information on the right side, with responsive layout.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic login page structure correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the HTML structure properly divides the page into left (image) and right (login form) sections. Check for appropriate semantic tags (header, main, form, etc.) and a logical DOM hierarchy. Score 0 if the basic two-column layout is missing, 5 if the layout exists but has structural issues, and 10 for a clean, semantic implementation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the responsive layout properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the layout adjusts appropriately across different screen sizes (mobile, tablet, desktop). Check for media queries that transform the side-by-side layout to a stacked layout on smaller screens. Score 0 if no responsive features exist, 5 if basic responsiveness is implemented but with breakpoint issues, and 10 for a fully fluid responsive design with appropriate breakpoints (typically 768px, 992px, 1200px).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the login form complete with proper validation?",
+      "description": "Check if the form includes all necessary elements: username/email field, password field with masking, remember me option, login button, and possibly forgot password/register links. Verify client-side validation for required fields, email format, and password complexity. Deduct 3 points for each missing validation feature, 5 points if the form is incomplete. Full score for comprehensive validation with helpful error messages.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the image implementation optimized?",
+      "description": "Assess if the image is properly implemented with responsive techniques (max-width, object-fit), alternative text for accessibility, and loading optimization (lazy loading, appropriate format like WebP). Check if it maintains proper aspect ratio across screen sizes. Deduct 3 points if the image is not responsive, 3 points for missing alt text, 4 points for unoptimized formats/sizes that would affect page load performance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as form submission failures, image loading errors, 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. Password strength indicator 2. Social login options 3. Interactive animations/transitions 4. Dark/light mode toggle). 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 CSS rules or JavaScript functions 2. Unnecessary libraries for simple functionality 3. Overly complex animations that affect performance or usability. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization (separation of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript), use of CSS methodologies (BEM, SMACSS), code reusability, and browser compatibility. Deduct 5 points for inline styles or scripts; deduct 5 points if the code isn't modular or lacks comments; deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for cross-browser compatibility. 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) Form input feedback (focus states, validation messages) 2) Button hover/active states 3) Form submission feedback. Deduct 5 points for missing input focus states, 3 points for lack of hover effects on clickable elements, and 5 points for no visual feedback during form submission. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/login-registration-component-with-styling.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1660,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you produce is executable for demonstration purposes. Please write a login/registration component for me with refined styling, which can include a background image and the ability to switch between login and registration forms.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the login/registration component fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the component implements complete login and registration functionality with the ability to switch between forms. Validate that form fields include proper input validation (email format, password strength, etc.). Score 0 if core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic form submission is implemented without validation, and 10 if both login and registration forms are complete with comprehensive validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is form validation properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of client-side validation including: required field checks, email format validation, password strength requirements, and instant feedback on validation errors. Deduct 3 points if validation only happens on submission rather than in real-time; deduct 5 points if validation is minimal or easily bypassed; deduct 5 points if there's no visual feedback for validation errors. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the form switching mechanism implemented smoothly?",
+      "description": "Check if the component allows users to switch between login and registration forms without page reload, with smooth transitions. Evaluate whether the state management handles the transition properly, preserving data when appropriate. Deduct 5 points if switching causes jarring UI changes; deduct 3 points if data is inappropriately lost between switches; deduct 5 points if any errors occur during switching. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the background image feature properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the component supports background images with proper responsive behavior across different screen sizes. Check for proper image optimization, loading techniques (e.g., lazy loading), and fallbacks. Deduct 3 points if the background image isn't responsive; deduct 5 points if it significantly impacts performance; deduct 3 points if there are no fallbacks for failed image loads. 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 failures during submission, browser compatibility issues, accessibility edge cases, 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. Social login integration 2. Password strength visual indicator 3. Remember me functionality 4. Intelligent form field auto-completion 5. Dark/light mode toggle). Add 2 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 validation logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to login/registration (e.g., unnecessary animations or widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or heavy background effects). 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 components from validation logic), use of design patterns (e.g., controlled components, custom hooks), proper event handling, and clean code principles. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high; deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Proper contrast for readability. 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) Form submission feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 200-300ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for keyboard navigation 4) Proper loading states during submissions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring animations, and 5 points for hard-to-find form elements or buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/media-sharing-annotation-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 808,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the generated code is executable whenever possible.\n1. Create a system that allows uploading videos and photos, with the ability to add text annotations\n2. Enable sharing of uploaded videos and photos with others, automatically hiding crucial information during the sharing process\n3. Allow multiple users to simultaneously manage uploaded photos and videos, and modify the annotation information",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a robust file upload system that handles both videos and photos. Check for file type validation, size limits, progress indicators, and proper error handling. Score 0 if basic upload functionality is missing, 5 if only basic uploads work without validation, and 10 if it includes comprehensive upload features including chunked uploads for large videos, retry mechanisms, and format conversion capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the text annotation functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the annotation system's capabilities for both videos and photos. For videos, check if it supports timeline-based annotations, frame-specific notes, and persistent storage of annotation data. For photos, verify region-based annotations, text formatting options, and proper positioning. Deduct 5 points if annotations cannot be edited after creation, and 3 points if annotation positioning is imprecise. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the content sharing mechanism secure and functional?",
+      "description": "Examine the sharing system for security features including permission controls, link expiration settings, and most importantly, automatic information hiding/redaction capabilities. Verify that sensitive content (faces, license plates, metadata) can be automatically detected and obscured during sharing. Deduct 5 points if sharing lacks permission settings, and 5 points if the automatic information hiding feature is absent or ineffective. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the collaborative management system implemented effectively?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements real-time collaboration features allowing multiple users to simultaneously manage and annotate content. Check for conflict resolution mechanisms, version control of annotations, activity logging, and role-based permissions. Deduct 5 points if the system lacks real-time updates, and 5 points if there's no conflict resolution strategy. Give 10 points if fully implemented with presence indicators showing who is currently editing what.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, concurrent edits, invalid file formats, 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 content moderation 2. Automatic transcription for video annotations 3. Advanced search capabilities for annotations 4. Batch editing tools). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple separate annotation systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core requirements (e.g., a built-in game or irrelevant social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact responsiveness). 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/annotation/sharing logic), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/mini-program-online-customer-service.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 724,
+  "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 and demonstrable. Based on the previous response, please help write a set of sample code including front-end interface (WXML\\WXSS\\JS) and cloud function services to implement online customer service capabilities for a mini program.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the customer service interface fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the WXML/WXSS code creates a professional customer service interface with message input area, message display area, and service status indicators. Score 0 if the core UI components are missing, 5 if basic elements exist but lack proper styling, and 10 if the interface is complete with responsive design and appropriate placeholder states.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the real-time messaging function properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the message sending/receiving logic using either WebSocket or cloud database subscription. Check for message typing indicators, read receipts, and proper message formatting. Deduct 5 points if there's no message timestamp display, 3 points if media messages aren't supported, and 3 points if there's no offline message handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are cloud functions correctly configured for customer service operations?",
+      "description": "Check whether cloud functions are properly implemented for message storage, user authentication, and service routing. Evaluate if the cloud functions follow proper security practices and include error handling. Deduct 5 points if there's no rate limiting implementation, 3 points if there's no validation of message content, and 3 points if logs/analytics are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a complete customer service workflow management system?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes service queue management, automatic/manual service assignment, conversation history persistence, and session state management (active/waiting/closed). Deduct 5 points if there's no priority handling mechanism, 3 points if conversation continuity is broken after app restart, and 5 points if there's no service quality feedback collection. 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 interruption, message delivery failure, service unavailability, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered auto-replies 2. Quick response templates 3. Rich media message support like voice/image/location 4. Customer satisfaction rating system). 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 message sending methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to customer service (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in conversation UI). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/network layers), component reusability, and proper use of mini program lifecycle hooks. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if performance optimizations are missing (e.g., virtual list for long conversations). 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) Consistent with WeChat's design language 2) Proper use of spacing and layout (following the 8px grid system) 3) Clear visual hierarchy between customer and agent messages. Deduct 3 points for each obvious visual inconsistency, 5 points for poor readability of messages, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation. 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 user expectations: 1) Message sending feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth scrolling and message transitions 3) Clear loading states during operations. Deduct 5 points for laggy message list scrolling, 3 points for missing loading indicators during network operations, and 5 points for jerky transitions between different states. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/multi-user-online-whiteboard-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 617,
+  "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. \n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I'll provide you with a software development requirement description, and you should 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. Always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nImplement a multi-user online whiteboard collaboration tool that supports real-time drawing, adding notes, and uploading images. All users can simultaneously draw on the whiteboard, with each user's cursor position and operations synchronized in real-time to other users. Provide various drawing tools such as pencil, line, arrow, rectangle, etc., as well as text box and sticky note functions. Implement infinite scrolling and zooming capabilities for the whiteboard area. Add a user list displaying all current online collaborators and distinguish their drawing content with different colors. Support undo/redo operations, as well as whiteboard content export and sharing functions.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the real-time whiteboard drawing functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a canvas-based drawing system with various tools (pencil, line, arrow, rectangle). Check if the drawing operations are properly captured, rendered, and have consistent behavior across different browsers. Examine if the drawing system supports different stroke widths, colors, and opacity settings. Score 0 if basic drawing functionality is missing, 5 if only basic pencil tool is implemented, and 10 if all specified drawing tools are fully functional with proper options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the multi-user collaboration system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the real-time synchronization mechanism (WebSocket or similar technology), checking if user actions are properly broadcast to other connected users. Examine if the system handles concurrent edits appropriately, maintains consistency across clients, and includes conflict resolution. Verify if cursor positions are tracked and displayed for all users. Deduct 5 points if synchronization has noticeable lag (>300ms), 3 points if cursor tracking is missing, and 3 points if conflicts aren't handled properly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the text and image integration features implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes functionality for adding text boxes, sticky notes, and uploading/embedding images on the whiteboard. Verify that text elements are editable, support formatting, and can be repositioned. For images, check if upload, resize, and repositioning are supported. Deduct 4 points if text formatting is missing, 3 points if image upload doesn't handle different file formats, and 3 points if positioning/resizing of elements is buggy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the infinite canvas with zoom and pan functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the whiteboard supports infinite scrolling in all directions, smooth zooming (in/out), and easy panning. Check if the implementation maintains drawing quality at different zoom levels and if performance remains smooth when navigating large canvases. Verify if there are navigation aids (e.g., mini-map, zoom percentage indicator). Deduct 4 points if zooming is jerky or pixelated, 3 points if panning has performance issues, and 3 points if the canvas size is limited. 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 interruption, concurrent edits collision, large whiteboard content, 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. AI-assisted drawing recognition 2. Advanced collaboration features like voting or attention focus 3. Templates library for common diagrams 4. Voice annotations). 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 drawing libraries overlapping) 2. Function modules unrelated to whiteboard collaboration (e.g., a built-in chat system that duplicates existing communication) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down drawing). 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 drawing logic/UI components/networking 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) Drawing response delay ≤ 50ms 2) UI transition animation duration controlled between 200-400ms 3) Clear visual feedback for tool selection and active users. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for noticeable lag during multi-user interaction, and 5 points for poorly accessible tool selection UI. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/music-listening-webpage-jay-chou-bigbang-tara-exo.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1186,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code whenever possible. Help me create a webpage for listening to music by Jay Chou, BIGBANG, T-ARA, and EXO.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the music player functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements core music player features including play/pause, next/previous track, volume control, and progress bar. Check if the player can handle different audio formats and provides proper feedback during playback. Score 0 if core playback functionality is missing, 5 if only basic controls are implemented, and 10 if all essential music player features work smoothly.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the music library of specified artists properly organized?",
+      "description": "Verify that the music library contains songs from all requested artists (Jay Chou, BIGBANG, T-ARA, and EXO) and that they are properly categorized and searchable. Check if metadata like artist info, album covers, and song details are displayed. Deduct 2 points for each missing artist, 3 points if song categorization is chaotic, and 3 points if metadata is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the playlist management system implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if users can create, save, and manage custom playlists. Check for features like adding/removing songs, rearranging tracks, and saving playlist states. Verify if the system persists playlist data using localStorage or another storage method. Deduct 5 points if playlists can't be saved, 3 points if reordering isn't supported, and 3 points if there's no way to create multiple playlists. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the audio visualization component implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the webpage includes audio visualization features like a waveform display, spectrum analyzer, or other visual effects that respond to the music. Assess the technical implementation using Web Audio API or Canvas/SVG for visualization. Deduct 5 points if there's no visualization, 3 points if visualizations don't sync properly with music, and 2 points if visualizations negatively impact performance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as audio file loading errors, playback issues, network interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Lyrics synchronization 2. Artist information popups 3. Music recommendation system 4. Theme customization based on album art). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple volume control mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to music playing (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components/audio control/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) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/nodejs-chunk-file-upload-interface.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 727,
+  "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. Initialize a project and use Node.js to create a file upload interface that supports chunk uploading, with frontend uploaded files stored in the 'file' folder.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file chunking mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements file chunking on the client side, including proper slice calculation, chunk size management, and unique identifiers for each chunk. Score 0 if chunking is not implemented, 5 if basic chunking exists but with limitations (e.g., fixed chunk size that doesn't account for file size), and 10 if it implements adaptive chunking with proper error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the file upload interface complete and functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload interface provides necessary features: file selection, progress indication, pause/resume functionality, and clear status messages. Deduct 3 points if progress indication is missing, 3 points if there's no pause/resume capability, and 4 points if error states aren't displayed to users. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the server-side chunk assembly mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the server code correctly handles receiving chunks, temporary storage, validation (MD5/hash verification), and final assembly into the complete file in the 'file' folder. Deduct 5 points if chunk verification is missing, 3 points if temporary files aren't properly managed, and 5 points if the final assembly process doesn't handle edge cases. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include proper concurrent upload handling?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code supports simultaneous upload of multiple files and concurrent chunk uploads with proper throttling mechanisms. Score 0 if concurrency isn't supported, 5 if basic concurrency exists but without throttling, and 10 if it implements intelligent throttling based on network conditions and server load.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, browser crashes, duplicate uploads, invalid 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. Drag-and-drop uploading 2. Automatic retry mechanism 3. Client-side file compression 4. Image preview before upload). 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 validation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to file uploading (e.g., unnecessary authentication layers) 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 upload logic/UI/server communication), error handling patterns, 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 logging and debugging capabilities are insufficient. 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 and intuitive upload interface 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Clear visual feedback during different upload stages. Deduct 3 points for cluttered interface elements, 5 points for confusing status indicators, and 5 points for poor accessibility features. 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 button response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth progress indicators without jitter 3) Clear visual guidance during chunk uploads. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for choppy progress indicators, and 5 points for confusing state transitions between upload phases. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}