@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-pinia-token-auth-login-module.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1405,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable when possible. Using Vue3, Pinia, and token authentication, generate code for a login module.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue3 Composition API implementation complete and standardized?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly uses Vue3 Composition API features including setup(), ref/reactive state management, computed properties, and lifecycle hooks. Check if the component structure follows Vue3 best practices with proper template syntax, event handling, and form binding. Score 0 if using Options API or Vue2 syntax, 5 if basic Composition API is used but lacks proper reactivity patterns, and 10 if fully leveraging Vue3's advanced features with proper TypeScript support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Pinia store architecture properly designed and implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether Pinia store is correctly configured with proper state management, actions, and getters. Check if the authentication state is properly managed with user data, login status, and token storage. Verify if store actions handle async operations correctly with proper error handling. Deduct 5 points if store mutations are used instead of actions, 3 points if state persistence is not implemented, and 2 points if store modularity is poor. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the token authentication mechanism secure and comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the token authentication includes secure token storage (preferably httpOnly cookies or secure localStorage), automatic token refresh logic, and proper header injection for API requests. Verify if JWT token validation, expiration handling, and logout token cleanup are implemented. Deduct 5 points if tokens are stored in plain localStorage without encryption, 3 points if no refresh token mechanism exists, and 5 points if no token expiration validation is present. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the complete login workflow with route protection implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes comprehensive login flow with form validation, API integration, loading states, and route guards. Check if protected routes redirect to login page and successful login redirects to intended destination. Verify if 'remember me' functionality and auto-login on page refresh are implemented. Deduct 5 points if no route protection exists, 3 points if form validation is incomplete, and 2 points if loading states are missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper UX flow.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust with comprehensive error handling?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common scenarios such as network failures, invalid credentials, server errors, token expiration, and malformed responses. Check if user-friendly error messages are displayed and proper fallback mechanisms exist. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like concurrent login attempts and session conflicts, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no error handling exists, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance user experience?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes advanced features that improve login experience (e.g., 1. Biometric authentication support 2. Social login integration 3. Progressive form validation with real-time feedback 4. Adaptive security measures based on login patterns 5. Multi-factor authentication). Add 2-3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant or unnecessary implementations?",
+      "description": "Strictly check for three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate authentication logic across components 2. Unnecessary third-party libraries for simple operations 3. Over-engineered validation that impacts performance 4. Redundant API calls or excessive state watchers. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core login functionality is compromised by unnecessary complexity.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code demonstrate high engineering quality standards?",
+      "description": "Review component modularity, separation of concerns (auth logic, UI components, API services), TypeScript usage, and code organization. Check for proper composable functions, reusable utilities, and clean architecture patterns. Deduct 5 points if authentication logic is mixed with UI components; deduct 3 points if no TypeScript definitions exist; deduct 5 points if code lacks proper commenting and documentation. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the login interface meet modern design and accessibility standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the login form follows contemporary UI/UX principles: 1) Clean, minimal design with proper visual hierarchy 2) Accessible form labels and ARIA attributes 3) Responsive design for mobile devices 4) Professional color scheme and typography 5) Proper spacing and alignment. Deduct 3 points for poor mobile responsiveness, 5 points for accessibility violations, and 3 points for unprofessional visual appearance. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Are the interactions smooth with proper feedback mechanisms?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the login interactions provide immediate and clear feedback: 1) Form validation feedback appears within 200ms 2) Loading states during authentication with progress indicators 3) Smooth transitions between login states 4) Clear success/error message presentation 5) Keyboard navigation support. Deduct 5 points for missing loading indicators, 3 points for delayed validation feedback, and 5 points for poor keyboard accessibility. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-tiptap-yjs-shared-editor.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1241,
+  "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. Implement a shared editor using Vue 3, Tiptap, and Yjs.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the shared editor core functionality properly implemented with Tiptap and Yjs?",
+      "description": "Check if the code correctly integrates Tiptap as the rich text editor framework with Yjs for real-time collaboration. The implementation should include proper document synchronization, cursor positions sharing, and handling of concurrent edits. Score 0 if integration is missing, 5 if basic integration exists but with limited features, and 10 if the integration is complete with full collaborative editing capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Vue 3 integration correctly implemented with Composition API?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code leverages Vue 3's Composition API effectively for state management and component organization. Check for proper use of reactive references, computed properties, lifecycle hooks, and component structure. Deduct 5 points if reactive data management is poorly implemented, 3 points if components are not properly structured, and 2 points if Vue 3 specific features aren't utilized. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are real-time collaboration features fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess the implementation of collaboration features such as awareness (showing who's editing), cursor/selection highlighting, conflict resolution, and synchronization provider setup. Check if the code includes WebRTC or a proper WebSocket provider for Yjs. Deduct 5 points if user presence is not visualized, 3 points if conflict resolution is weak, and 3 points if synchronization is unreliable. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper offline support and data persistence?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the editor implements offline capabilities with local persistence and proper reconnection handling. Check for IndexedDB integration, state recovery mechanisms, and offline edit queueing. Deduct 5 points if offline editing is not supported, 3 points if synchronization after reconnection is problematic, and 2 points if there's no local persistence of documents. 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, concurrent edit conflicts, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Commenting/annotation system 2. Document version history with diff viewing 3. Custom collaboration-friendly plugins 4. AI-assisted editing 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 functions (e.g., multiple state synchronization mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to collaborative editing (e.g., unnecessary media embeddings) 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 editor logic/UI components/collaboration services), 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) Real-time updates appear within 100ms 2) UI updating smoothly during collaborative editing 3) Clear visual indicators for remote user actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual glitches during collaborative editing, and 5 points for confusing or inconsistent collaboration indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-uni-app-chat-conversation-text-display.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1011,
+  "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. Vue3 Uni-app text display sentence by sentence, showing like a chat conversation.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue3 Uni-app text display component fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements a Vue3 component that displays text sentence by sentence. Check if the component uses Vue3's Composition API correctly (refs, reactive, setup(), etc.). Score 0 if no functional component is implemented, 5 if the component works but without proper Vue3 paradigms, and 10 if the implementation follows Vue3 best practices with proper reactivity.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the sentence-by-sentence display mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the text is properly split into sentences (using regex or appropriate string manipulation) and displayed with a natural timing mechanism. Check if the implementation handles edge cases like empty strings, single sentences, and punctuation correctly. Deduct 5 points if sentence detection is flawed, and 3 points if the timing mechanism is too simplistic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is Uni-app cross-platform compatibility addressed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code accounts for Uni-app's cross-platform requirements and uses platform-agnostic APIs. Verify that the component works across different platforms (iOS, Android, H5) without platform-specific code or with proper conditional compilation. Deduct 5 points if the code only works on a single platform, and 3 points if it uses deprecated Uni-app methods. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the chat conversation UX/UI properly designed?",
+      "description": "Assess if the implementation includes appropriate chat UI elements (message bubbles, timestamps, user avatars, etc.) and follows a proper conversation flow. Check if the component includes features like message status indicators and typing animations. Give 10 points if it fully resembles a professional chat interface, 5 points for basic conversation display, and 0 points if no chat-like UI is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty messages, extremely long sentences, network-loaded content, etc.) and provide friendly error handling. 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. Customizable typing speed 2. Text-to-speech integration 3. Read receipts or status indicators). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant animation or timing logic 2. Function modules unrelated to text display (e.g., unnecessary network calls) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 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 display logic/typing mechanics/styling), component reusability, and proper Vue3 practices. Deduct 5 points if global state is misused; deduct 5 points if the code has poor separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if Vue3 reactivity system is bypassed with direct DOM manipulation. 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 chat UI principles: 1) Distinguishable message bubbles with proper contrast 2) Consistent padding and margins (following the 8px rule) 3) Readable typography (font size ≥ 14px, appropriate line height). Deduct 3 points for cluttered message layout, 5 points for poor contrast making text hard to read, and 5 points for inconsistent bubble styling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the typing animation and text transition smooth and natural?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the sentence-by-sentence display feels natural: 1) Appropriate typing speed (neither too fast nor too slow) 2) Smooth transitions between sentences 3) Natural pauses at punctuation. Deduct 5 points if the typing effect feels mechanical, 3 points for jarring transitions between sentences, and 5 points if the timing doesn't account for sentence length or complexity. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-uniapp-socketio-chat-dialogue-box.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 283,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code demonstrations when possible. Help me write a beautiful couple's chat dialogue box based on Vue3, uni-app and Socket.io.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue3 component structure properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the component architecture for the chat dialogue box. Check if it uses Vue3 composition API effectively with proper reactive data, computed properties, and lifecycle hooks. Verify separation of concerns (UI components, data handling, socket connection management). Deduct 5 points if still using Vue2 patterns, 3 points if composition API is poorly implemented, and 3 points if reactive references are misused. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the uni-app cross-platform adaptation implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly utilizes uni-app APIs for multi-platform compatibility. Check for conditional platform-specific code, proper usage of uni-app UI components, and responsive layouts that work across mobile/desktop. Verify if platform-specific edge cases are handled (iOS safe areas, Android back button). Deduct 5 points if only works on one platform, 3 points if missing key platform adaptations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the Socket.io integration complete and robust?",
+      "description": "Assess the Socket.io implementation for real-time messaging. Verify presence of connection management (connect, disconnect, reconnect), proper event handling, typing indicators, read receipts, and error handling. Check for disconnection resilience with message queue/local storage. Deduct 5 points if missing reconnection logic, 3 points if lacking offline message handling, and 3 points if connection state isn't visually indicated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the couple-specific chat functionality well-designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate special features tailored for couples: private photo sharing, calendar/date planning, mood tracking, anniversary reminders, etc. Check for couple-specific UI elements like paired avatars, relationship milestone tracking, or customized themes. Deduct 5 points if implementation is generic without couple-specific features, 3 points if couple features exist but are poorly integrated. 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 send failures, invalid inputs, image upload errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Voice/video call integration 2. Custom animated emojis/stickers for couples 3. Message translation for multilingual couples 4. Interactive games within the chat). 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 message sending methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to couple communication (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that cause lag). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core chat 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/network layers), component reusability, code documentation, and adherence to Vue3/uni-app best practices. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error logging or debugging capabilities. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the chat UI follows modern design principles: 1) Romantic yet clean color scheme suitable for couples 2) Clear message distinction between partners with personalized bubbles 3) Proper spacing and typography for readability (body font size ≥ 14px, line height 1.5x). Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for unappealing color combinations, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the chat interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Message sending/receiving animations feel natural 2) Smooth scrolling and message history loading 3) Responsive UI feedback for all actions (typing, message sent/read). Deduct 5 points for laggy scrolling, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points if the chat doesn't automatically scroll to new messages. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/web-app-login-profile-chat-pages.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 820,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. In the following, generate a login page, a profile page, and a chat page. Also, please do not use <template slot-scope=\"scope\">, as I don't understand this syntax.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the login page functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the login page includes complete form validation (email format, password strength), authentication logic, error handling, and secure token management. Check for proper input sanitization and CSRF protection. Score 0 if basic login form is missing, 5 if only frontend validation exists, and 10 if complete authentication flow with security measures is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the profile page comprehensively designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the profile page includes user information display, avatar upload functionality, editable fields with validation, and proper data persistence. Check for image optimization and preview capabilities. Score 0 if static display only, 5 if basic editing is available, and 10 if full profile management with file handling is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the chat page real-time communication implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the chat page includes real-time messaging (WebSocket or similar), message history, typing indicators, and proper message formatting. Evaluate message delivery status and timestamp handling. Score 0 if no real-time features, 5 if basic messaging works, and 10 if comprehensive chat features with real-time updates are fully functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the page navigation and routing properly structured?",
+      "description": "Assess whether proper navigation between login, profile, and chat pages is implemented with route protection, authentication guards, and smooth transitions. Check for proper state management across pages and session handling. Score 0 if no routing exists, 5 if basic navigation works, and 10 if complete routing with authentication guards is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, invalid inputs, authentication errors, file upload failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time message encryption 2. Voice message support 3. Theme customization 4. Advanced search in chat history 5. Emoji reactions). 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 logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to core pages (e.g., built-in games or music players) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 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 authentication/UI/API layers), component reusability, and proper code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper folder structure or component separation exists. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Consistent UI components across all three pages. 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 4) Proper loading states and progress indicators 5) Smooth page transitions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during interactions, 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/web-chat-tool-create-join-room.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1663,
+  "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 when possible. Develop a web chat tool with a homepage featuring two buttons: \"Create Room\" and \"Join Room",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the web chat room creation functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the 'Create Room' button actually generates a unique room ID, initializes a new chat session, and provides a mechanism to share this room ID with others. Score 0 if room creation is missing, 5 if basic room creation exists without validation, and 10 if it includes server-side verification, unique ID generation with collision prevention, and visual feedback of successful creation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the room joining mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the 'Join Room' button includes input validation for room IDs, handles non-existent rooms gracefully, and successfully connects users to existing chat sessions. Deduct 5 points if there's no validation for invalid room IDs, 3 points if there's no loading state during connection, and 2 points if error messages are unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the real-time messaging functionality implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Assess if the chat implements a reliable real-time messaging system (WebSockets/Server-Sent Events/long polling), handles message delivery statuses, and implements message queuing for offline users. Score 0 if messaging doesn't work in real-time, 5 if basic messaging works but lacks delivery confirmations, and 10 if it includes typing indicators, read receipts, and handles network interruptions gracefully.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the chat interface include essential messaging features?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the chat interface includes message timestamps, user identification, message history loading, and scrolling to new messages. Deduct 2 points for each missing feature. Give 10 points only if the chat includes all essential features plus at least one additional feature like message editing, deletion, or reactions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruption, invalid inputs, concurrent users editing, browser tab switching, 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. End-to-end encryption 2. File/image sharing 3. Voice/video chat option 4. Custom emoji/sticker support). 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 notification systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to chat (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/business logic/network layers), error handling patterns, and code reusability. 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 clear separation between components. 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) Message sending 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 stuttering during fast message scrolling, 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/web-document-collaboration-editor-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 514,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the generated code is executable and functional. Create a web-based online document collaboration editing frontend interface. The interface should include a text editing area where users can input text content. Above it, there should be a toolbar containing text formatting buttons such as \"Bold,\" \"Italic,\" \"Underline,\" etc. When clicked, these buttons should change the style of the selected text. Additionally, the interface should display a real-time word count of the current document.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic text editing area properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a functional text editing area with proper event handling (keypress, focus, blur), text selection capabilities, and cursor positioning. Score 0 if the editing area is not implemented, 5 if it has basic functionality but lacks advanced features, and 10 if it includes features like auto-save and undo/redo history.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the formatting buttons fully functional?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code properly implements formatting buttons (Bold, Italic, Underline, etc.) that apply formatting to selected text. The implementation should handle selection ranges correctly and maintain proper markup in the document. Deduct 2 points if any core formatting option is missing, 3 points if the selection state after formatting is lost, and 5 points if the formatting doesn't persist across editing sessions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the real-time word count feature correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the word count updates in real-time as the user types, handles different languages correctly, and accounts for edge cases (like consecutive spaces or punctuation). The counter should update without noticeable performance impact. Deduct 3 points if the count is inaccurate, 3 points if it doesn't update in real-time, and 4 points if it causes performance issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the interface handle collaborative features appropriately?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes conflict resolution mechanisms, user presence indicators, and real-time synchronization capabilities. Check for cursor/selection broadcasting between users and clear visual feedback on who is editing what. Deduct 5 points if there's no conflict resolution strategy, 3 points if user presence is not visualized, and 2 points if there's no indication of remote changes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as content loss prevention, browser crashes, network interruption, concurrent edits, 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. Automatic document formatting 2. AI-powered writing suggestions 3. Document history with visual diff 4. Markdown/rich text switching capability). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple text selection methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to document editing (e.g., built-in games or distracting elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect editing performance (e.g., excessive animations on keypress). 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 document model/view/controller layers), component reusability, and build process optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not optimized for performance. 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 editor design principles: 1) Clean, distraction-free editing area 2) Proper toolbar organization with logical grouping 3) Appropriate use of white space and contrast 4) Professional typography for both editing area and UI elements. Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 5 points for inconsistent visual hierarchy, and 5 points for poor readability in the editing area. 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) Text input latency ≤ 16ms 2) Format button feedback ≤ 100ms 3) Clear visual indicators for text selection and formatting states. Deduct 5 points for perceptible input lag, 3 points for formatting operations that disrupt the editing flow, and 5 points if the current formatting state isn't clearly indicated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/web-message-board-code.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1556,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that your generated code is executable and can be demonstrated. Please help write code for a message board.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is a complete message board data structure implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements the core data structures for a message board: message objects (with timestamps, user IDs, content), user profiles, and threading/reply relationships. Score 0 if no data structure is defined, 5 if only basic message objects are created, and 10 if a complete relational structure including replies, likes, and metadata is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are essential CRUD operations fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes all necessary Create, Read, Update, Delete operations for message board functionality: posting messages, viewing messages (including pagination), editing posts, and deleting messages. Deduct 3 points for each missing operation. Proper validation and error handling for each operation should be present. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is user authentication and authorization implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes user registration, login functionality, and proper authorization controls (who can edit/delete which messages). Score 0 if no authentication exists, 5 if basic authentication without proper security measures (like password hashing) is implemented, and 10 if a complete secure authentication system with session management is present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is data persistence properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess how the message board data is stored and persisted: Is there a database connection (SQL/NoSQL)? Are there migrations or schema definitions? Is there proper data sanitization to prevent injection attacks? Deduct 5 points if data is only stored in memory without persistence, and 3 points if there's no data validation or sanitization. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, server errors, concurrent editing conflicts, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time updates with WebSockets 2. Rich text formatting or markdown support 3. @mentions and notifications 4. Emoji reactions). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple user authentication methods without clear purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to a message board (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or visual 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 models, views, controllers or appropriate frontend/backend architecture), code reusability, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error handling or logging. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for message threads. 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) Smooth loading states when fetching messages 3) Clear visual feedback for user actions (posting, editing, deleting). Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between pages or states, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}