@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/web_applications-communication/online-meeting-room-video-audio-chat-app.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 569,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure that any code you generate is executable. Design an online meeting room application that supports video and audio calls. Users can turn on/off their camera and microphone, and view video streams of other participants. Include a chat window for sending text messages.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the video call functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements WebRTC for peer-to-peer video connections with proper signaling, ICE candidate exchange, and SDP negotiation. Check for camera access using getUserMedia API and whether video streams are properly rendered. Score 0 if video functionality is missing, 5 if basic implementation exists but with limitations, and 10 if fully featured with fallback mechanisms and quality controls.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the audio call functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the audio implementation including microphone access, audio level visualization, noise suppression, and echo cancellation features. Check for mute/unmute toggle functionality and whether audio state is properly synchronized across participants. Deduct 5 points if audio processing features are missing, and 3 points if there's no audio fallback mechanism when video fails. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the participant management system complete?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes user presence detection, participant lists with status indicators, room joining/leaving protocols, and host controls (if applicable). Check for proper handling of participants unexpectedly disconnecting and reconnection logic. Deduct 5 points for missing presence update mechanisms, and 3 points if there's no visual indication of who is speaking. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the chat functionality comprehensive and integrated with the call experience?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of the text chat system including message formatting, timestamp display, read receipts, and message persistence. Check whether chat is properly synchronized with the call experience (notifications during calls, history preservation). Deduct 5 points if message synchronization is unreliable, and 3 points if chat history isn't preserved across reconnections. 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 permission denials, device switching, network fluctuations, 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. Background blur/replacement 2. Real-time transcription 3. Recording functionality 4. Screen sharing with annotation tools 5. Breakout room support). 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 ways to mute/unmute) 2. Function modules unrelated to video conferencing (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance and bandwidth (e.g., unnecessary animations during critical communications). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating media handling/UI/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) Control response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indicators for mute/unmute, video on/off states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions when participants join/leave, and 5 points for confusing or inconsistent UI controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/online-voting-and-surveys.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1583,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code where possible. Please create a WeChat Mini Program based on this topic and requirements: \"Online Voting and Surveys, with features including: vote creation, questionnaire design, data statistics, result analysis, sharing and distribution, etc.\"\n(Note: I completely don't understand code meaning, I can only copy/paste and create files. Please provide complete and clear code that simply accomplishes the objective.)",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core voting system functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements the complete voting/survey workflow including creation, responses, and result viewing. Score 0 if the core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic voting is implemented without survey logic, and 10 if both voting and complex survey features (multiple choice, rating scales, open-ended questions) are fully implemented. Ensure the form validation logic is present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the questionnaire design feature comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code allows users to create customized surveys with various question types (single-choice, multiple-choice, matrix, open text, etc.). Check for drag-and-drop question reordering, question branching logic, and required/optional settings. Score 3 points for basic question types, 3 for customization options, 2 for logical flow controls, and 2 for preview functionality.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are data statistics and result analysis features properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of real-time data collection, statistical calculations, and visualization components. Check for charts (pie, bar, line), percentage calculations, cross-tabulation capabilities, and data export options. Deduct 5 points if visualizations are missing, 3 points if basic calculations are incorrect, and 2 points if export functionality is absent.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the sharing and distribution mechanism effective?",
+      "description": "Assess the WeChat-specific sharing functionality including survey link generation, QR code sharing, and social sharing options. Check for the implementation of WeChat Open Graph protocol integration and custom share messages. Award 10 points for fully functional sharing with proper WeChat API integration, 5 points for basic sharing without customization options, and 0 points if sharing isn't implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases (offline submissions, partial form completion, unexpected input types, etc.) and provides appropriate error handling. Check for form validation, data sanitization, and recovery mechanisms. Score 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation only, and 0 points if no error handling exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Look for unexpected valuable features that enhance the mini program (e.g., 1. AI-powered question suggestions 2. Interactive result dashboards 3. Gamified survey elements). 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. Duplicate implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation systems) 2. Features unrelated to voting/surveys (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Unnecessary animations or effects that impact performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with core functionality.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review the code architecture (separation of concerns between view/model/controller), component reusability, and adherence to WeChat Mini Program development standards. Check for proper use of pages, components, and global state management. Deduct 5 points for global state mismanagement, 3 points for excessive code duplication, and 2 points for poor directory structure. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows WeChat's design guidelines with appropriate use of white space, typography, and color scheme. Look for consistent component styling, proper form element spacing, and mobile-optimized layouts. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent UI element, 5 points for non-standard form controls, and 2 points for poor responsive behavior. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the app provides immediate feedback for user actions, smooth transitions between pages, and clear loading states. Check for appropriate gestures (swipe, tap) and WeChat-specific interactions. Deduct 3 points for each interaction without feedback, 5 points for laggy transitions, and 2 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/online-whiteboard-with-realtime-sync.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 461,
+  "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 purposes. Design an online whiteboard application where users can draw graphics in real-time, supporting synchronized content for multiple users, and offering undo and clear functions.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic canvas drawing functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core drawing capability using HTML5 Canvas API, with proper event handling for mouse/touch interactions. Check for support of different drawing tools (pen, shapes, text) with configurable properties (color, thickness, opacity). Score 0 if no drawing functionality exists, 5 if only basic freehand drawing is implemented, and 10 if multiple drawing tools with customizable properties are available.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is real-time multi-user synchronization properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the WebSocket/WebRTC implementation for real-time data transmission between users. Check for optimized data transfer (sending only incremental changes rather than full canvas state), conflict resolution mechanisms, and user presence indicators. Deduct 5 points if synchronization has noticeable lag (>200ms), 3 points if there's no user cursor visibility, and 5 points if conflict handling is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are undo/redo and clear functions properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the application maintains a proper action history stack to support multi-level undo/redo operations across all drawing actions. Verify that clear functionality works correctly and is synchronized to all users. Deduct 5 points if undo history is limited to less than 10 steps, 3 points if redo functionality is missing, and 5 points if clear actions aren't properly synchronized. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper state management and persistence?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the application maintains whiteboard state during page refresh/reconnection, and if it provides options to save/export content in common formats (PNG, SVG, JSON). Check for auto-save functionality and session recovery. Deduct 5 points if state is lost on page refresh, 3 points if export options are limited, and 5 points if there's no auto-save capability. 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, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large canvases, 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 drawing tools 2. Collaborative annotation with voice chat 3. Interactive presentation mode with pointer tools 4. Template library for common diagrams). 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 drawing functions (e.g., multiple overlapping pen tools) 2. Function modules unrelated to whiteboard collaboration (e.g., built-in games) 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/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 toolbar organization (grouped by function, with clear icons). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic toolbar layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the drawing experience feels natural and responsive: 1) Drawing latency ≤ 50ms 2) Smooth rendering without jitter during rapid strokes 3) Clear visual feedback for tool selection and actions. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag when drawing, 3 points for jerky rendering on complex drawings, and 5 points for confusing tool state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/personal-website-sharing-family-friends.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1502,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Could you help me design and create a personal website homepage? It would primarily be used for sharing photos, text, and videos within a small circle of family and friends. The purpose is to maintain and strengthen connections and emotional bonds between loved ones scattered across different regions, and to accumulate and showcase information about interactive activities among family and friends.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the personal homepage core functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements photo, text, and video sharing capabilities through HTML/CSS/JavaScript, including file upload handling, content display grid/list views, and basic CRUD operations for posts. Score 0 if core sharing functionality is missing, 5 if only basic text/image sharing is implemented, and 10 if multimedia sharing with proper preview and organization is fully included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the family circle interaction system properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes user authentication for family members, comment/reaction systems, and privacy controls for content visibility within the circle. Evaluate if there's a proper user management system distinguishing family roles. Deduct 5 points if no user authentication exists, and 3 points if privacy controls are inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is content organization and timeline management effectively structured?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the homepage uses effective content categorization (albums, events, chronological timeline) and search/filter capabilities. Check if there's proper content archiving and easy navigation through historical posts. Deduct 5 points if content organization is chaotic or lacks categorization. Check whether memory preservation features like anniversary reminders or milestone highlighting are implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is cross-device compatibility and data persistence properly handled?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes responsive design for mobile/tablet access, local storage or cloud storage integration for content persistence, and offline viewing capabilities. Evaluate if family members can access content seamlessly across different devices. Deduct 5 points if mobile responsiveness is poor, and 3 points if data persistence mechanisms are missing. Give 10 points if fully optimized for family sharing scenarios.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as large file uploads, unsupported media formats, network interruption, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that enhance family bonding?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes thoughtful features that strengthen family connections (e.g., 1. Automatic photo tagging and face recognition 2. Family event calendar integration 3. Memory lane random photo displays 4. Voice message attachments 5. Location-based content grouping). 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 upload mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to family sharing (e.g., e-commerce components, gaming features) 3. Overly complex effects that slow down content loading (e.g., heavy 3D animations, excessive parallax effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core sharing functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating content management/UI components/data layers), performance optimization for media loading, and scalable architecture. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or component structure is poorly organized; deduct 5 points if media optimization is missing (lazy loading, compression); deduct 5 points if the code lacks maintainability. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design create a warm, family-friendly atmosphere?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design creates an intimate, welcoming environment suitable for family sharing: 1) Warm color palette that evokes comfort and closeness 2) Intuitive navigation that's accessible to all age groups 3) Clean, uncluttered layout that highlights content over interface 4) Proper typography hierarchy for readability (body font ≥ 16px for older family members). Deduct 3 points for each element that feels cold or commercial, 5 points for poor accessibility for elderly users, and 5 points for cluttered layouts that distract from content. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user experience optimized for non-technical family members?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions are designed for users of varying technical abilities: 1) Drag-and-drop file uploads with clear visual feedback 2) One-click sharing with intuitive icons 3) Simple content organization that doesn't require technical knowledge 4) Fast loading times for media content (images load within 2 seconds). Deduct 5 points for each confusing interaction flow, 3 points for slow media loading, and 5 points if elderly or less tech-savvy users would struggle with basic operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/private-messaging-feature-forum.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 627,
+  "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 whenever possible. Implement a private messaging feature for a forum where users have access to private messages from their personal center. When clicked, it takes them to a message list page displaying conversations with other users, showing the username of the other party and a summary of the most recent message. Clicking on a conversation enters a detailed message page where users can view the complete conversation history and send new messages.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the private messaging UI structure properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes all three required UI components: 1) Personal center with message access point, 2) Message list/inbox view showing conversations, and 3) Detailed conversation view. Score 0 if any component is missing, 5 if all are present but navigation between them is flawed, and 10 if all components are properly interconnected with smooth navigation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the message list functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Check if the message list page correctly displays: 1) Usernames of conversation partners, 2) Preview of the most recent message content (truncated appropriately), 3) Timestamp information, and 4) Unread message indicators. Deduct 2 points for each missing feature. Score 10 if all features are implemented with proper sorting (newest conversations first).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the conversation view functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the detailed conversation page includes: 1) Complete message history with proper chronological ordering, 2) Clear visual distinction between sent and received messages, 3) Message timestamps, 4) A functional compose/reply interface with send button. Deduct 3 points if scrolling to older messages is not implemented, 2 points if there's no loading indicator for message history, and 3 points if the reply mechanism is incomplete.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data management properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the code's approach to message data management: 1) Proper data structures for conversations and messages, 2) API endpoints for fetching/sending messages, 3) Caching strategy to minimize redundant requests, 4) Handling of offline/reconnection scenarios. Score 3 points for proper data structures, 3 for complete API integration, 2 for caching implementation, and 2 for offline handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty message lists, network failures during message sending, long messages, 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 messaging experience (e.g., 1. Message read receipts, 2. Typing indicators, 3. Emoji reactions to messages, 4. Ability to share media files). 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 implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple message sending methods), 2. Function modules unrelated to messaging (e.g., a built-in game), 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/business logic/API layers), component reusability, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state management is implemented poorly; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high; deduct 2 points if naming conventions are inconsistent. 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 messaging UI principles: 1) Intuitive conversation bubbles, 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle), 3) Professional typography (clear hierarchy between sender names, messages, and timestamps). Deduct 3 points for each confusing visual element, 5 points for poor contrast that affects readability, and 5 points for chaotic message layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the messaging interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Immediate visual feedback when sending messages, 2) Smooth scrolling in conversation history, 3) Appropriate loading states when fetching messages. Deduct 3 points for delayed feedback when sending messages, 3 points for jerky scrolling performance, and 4 points if new messages don't automatically scroll into view. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/prize-drawing-web-page.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1163,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. For the company's annual party, I want to create a web page for a prize drawing.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the prize drawing core functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the random selection mechanism, with appropriate randomization algorithms that prevent predictability. Check for proper animation effects during the drawing process. Score 0 if the core drawing function is not implemented, 5 if only basic random selection exists, and 10 if it includes advanced features like customizable drawing rules, weighted probabilities, and exclusion mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the prize pool management system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code allows adding, editing, and removing prizes from the pool. Prize details should include name, image, quantity, and priority/weight. Deduct 5 points if prize editing is not implemented, 3 points if prize quantities are not tracked. Award full points if the system manages prize inventory during draws, preventing the same prize from being drawn when depleted.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are participant management features complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system allows importing/exporting participant lists, marking winners, and preventing duplicates. Check for filtering capabilities (such as department-based draws) and participant grouping. Deduct 5 points if basic CRUD operations for participants are missing, 3 points if there's no winner history tracking. The full score requires unique participant identification and duplicate prevention.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the drawing process interactive and visually engaging?",
+      "description": "Assess if the drawing process includes visual animations (like spinning wheels, flipping cards, or slot machine effects) with appropriate sound effects and visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if animations are missing, 3 points if the process lacks suspense-building elements. Full points require a visually impressive animation sequence that builds excitement for an annual party atmosphere.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty participant lists, network issues during data loading, 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. Confetti animations for winners 2. Dramatic reveal sequences 3. Live result dashboard). 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 random selection methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to prize drawing (e.g., unnecessary social media features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 3D 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 drawing logic/UI/data management), reusability of components, 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 there's no separation between presentation and business logic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design is appropriate for a celebratory annual party context: 1) Festive yet professional color scheme 2) Clear hierarchy for prize categories 3) Appropriate use of company branding. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered section, 5 points for inappropriate or inconsistent color schemes, and 5 points for poor readability of prize and winner information. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects create excitement while remaining functional: 1) Smooth transitions between different drawing states 2) Appropriate animation duration that builds tension without excessive delays 3) Clear focus on winners when announced. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for excessively long animations that disrupt the flow, and 5 points for confusing user flows during the drawing process. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/product-login-page-with-multiple-options.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1584,
+  "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 functional. Create a local web page interface that serves as a product login page. It should include product demonstration images, username and password input fields, and the ability to log in with a mobile phone number or email address. At the bottom, provide password recovery functionality and options for logging in through partner websites such as WeChat, QQ, DingTalk, Sina, NetEase, etc. Also include two registration options: one for teachers and one for students.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is a complete login interface implemented with all required elements?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes all required elements: product demo images, username/password fields, mobile/email login options, password recovery, third-party login options (WeChat, QQ, DingTalk, Sina, NetEase), and separate registration options for teachers and students. Score 0 if missing more than 3 elements, 5 if missing 1-2 elements, and 10 if all elements are present with proper layout and design.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the form validation properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements proper validation for username, password, email, and phone number inputs. Check for regex patterns, instant feedback on invalid inputs, and prevention of form submission with invalid data. Score 3 if basic validation exists, 7 if validation provides user feedback, and 10 if comprehensive validation with clear error messages and visual indicators is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the authentication flow complete and functional?",
+      "description": "Review whether the login functionality handles different authentication methods (username/password, mobile, email) correctly with appropriate state management. Check if the code includes proper handling of login attempts, success/failure responses, and session management. Deduct 5 points if the authentication logic is incomplete, and 3 points if error handling is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the third-party login options and registration paths properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the third-party login options (WeChat, QQ, DingTalk, etc.) have proper OAuth implementation or mock interfaces, and whether the different registration paths (teacher vs student) are clearly distinguished with appropriate form fields and validation. Deduct 5 points if third-party logins are merely decorative without functionality, and 3 points if the registration paths lack differentiation. 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 errors, wrong credentials, 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. Password strength meter 2. Animated transitions between login methods 3. Intelligent form field auto-completion 4. Biometric authentication options). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation methods for the same field) 2. Function modules unrelated to login (e.g., news feeds, unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy background animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core login functionality is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/validation/authentication logic), code organization, and best practices for web development. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for accessibility or responsiveness. 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) Consistent styling for form elements. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic form 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 feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition between login methods is smooth and intuitive 3) Clear visual focus guidance and tab navigation 4) Mobile-friendly touch targets (≥ 44px). Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between form states, and 5 points for hard-to-find important functions like password recovery. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/qml-wechat-work-interface.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1233,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Create QML code that mimics the PC version of WeChat Work interface.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the main UI layout of WeChat Work accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the QML code accurately implements the three-panel layout structure of PC WeChat Work (left sidebar for menu navigation, middle panel for contact/chat list, right panel for conversation details). Score 0 if the basic layout structure is missing, 5 if only partial layout is implemented, and 10 if the layout closely resembles the authentic WeChat Work interface with proper sizing and proportions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the core navigation elements properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of key navigation elements including: chat/contacts/workspace tabs in the sidebar, search functionality, and user profile section. Each missing element costs 2 points. The navigation should be interactive with proper state changes on selection. Deduct 5 points if navigation state management is not implemented correctly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the chat conversation interface fully functional?",
+      "description": "Check whether the chat panel includes message bubbles with different styles for sent/received messages, timestamp display, avatar integration, and message status indicators. Examine if the input area contains text input field, emoji selector, file attachment, and send button. Score 0 if the chat interface is missing, 5 if it's basic without styling, and 10 if it closely resembles WeChat Work's chat UI with all components.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are contacts and organizational structure components implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements the contacts view with organizational structure hierarchy, contact search, contact cards with avatars, names and titles. Check if the department tree structure is properly represented. Deduct 3 points for missing search functionality, 3 points for missing organizational hierarchy, and 4 points for incomplete contact card information. 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 empty states, error handling, resizing windows, etc.) and provide appropriate visual feedback. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like empty chat history or contact list. Give 10 points if comprehensive error handling is implemented, 5 points if basic error handling exists, and 0 points if no exception handling is present.",
+      "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. Dark mode implementation 2. Custom themes 3. Animated transitions 4. Message reaction features). 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 UI components (e.g., multiple message bubble implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to WeChat Work (e.g., unrelated tools or games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations or transitions). 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, models, and controllers), code reusability, property bindings usage, and QML best practices. Deduct 5 points if global properties are overused; deduct 5 points if there's excessive code duplication; deduct 5 points if the code structure doesn't follow QML conventions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the visual design matches WeChat Work's aesthetic: 1) Correct color scheme (primary green, white/light gray backgrounds, proper contrast) 2) Proper layout spacing and alignment 3) Appropriate font usage (consistent sizes and weights). Deduct 3 points for each major visual deviation from WeChat Work's design language, 5 points for inconsistent color usage, and 5 points for poor spacing or alignment issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the QML animations and transitions provide a smooth user experience: 1) Button hover/press states 2) Smooth panel transitions 3) Loading states where appropriate 4) Scrolling behavior in lists. Deduct 3 points for each missing interaction feedback, 5 points for choppy animations, and 5 points for unresponsive UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}