@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/web_applications-communication/webpage-auto-assign-tasks.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1131,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code when possible. How do I create a webpage that can automatically assign tasks?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the automatic task assignment algorithm implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a proper task assignment algorithm that distributes tasks based on logical criteria (workload balancing, priority queuing, skill matching, etc.). Score 0 if no assignment logic exists, 5 if basic random/round-robin distribution is implemented, and 10 if an intelligent algorithm considering multiple factors (availability, skills, priority) is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include a complete task data model?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the task data structure is properly defined with essential attributes (title, description, priority, deadline, assignee, status). Deduct 2 points for each missing critical attribute. Check if proper data validation is implemented for task creation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is a user/resource management system implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes functionality to manage users/resources to whom tasks can be assigned. Score 0 if no user management exists, 5 if basic user profiles are implemented, and 10 if comprehensive user management with skill profiles, availability tracking, and workload monitoring is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a complete task lifecycle management system?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements functionality for creating, assigning, tracking, updating, and completing tasks. Deduct 2 points for each missing lifecycle stage. Check if the system includes notifications for task assignments and deadline reminders. 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 (invalid inputs, server errors, concurrent operations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered task suggestions 2. Drag-and-drop task management 3. Real-time collaboration features 4. Intelligent deadline/priority recommendations). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to assign tasks) 2. Function modules unrelated to task management (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 data/logic/UI layers), code organization, 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 is no error handling or logging mechanism. 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 task visualization (clear status indicators, progress bars, priority markings). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic task presentation. 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) Task assignment feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback when tasks are assigned or updated. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy task assignment processes, and 5 points for confusing interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/webpage-deepseek-model-interaction.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1534,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Help me create a webpage that can interact with a locally deployed DeepSeek model.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the API connectivity implementation complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements API calls to the DeepSeek model, including proper request formatting, response handling, and error management. Score 0 if no API connection is implemented, 5 if basic connectivity exists but lacks error handling, and 10 if comprehensive API integration with proper timeout handling, retries, and error states is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the frontend interface provide comprehensive interaction with the DeepSeek model?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the interface allows users to send various types of prompts/queries to the model and displays responses appropriately. Check for input validation, support for different query types (text completion, question answering, etc.), and proper display of model outputs with appropriate formatting. Deduct 3 points if only basic text input/output is supported without formatting options, 5 points if there's no way to customize model parameters, and 2 points if response streaming is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there proper request state management and loading indicators?",
+      "description": "Check if the implementation includes proper state management for API requests (idle, loading, success, error states) and provides appropriate visual feedback to users. Evaluate whether loading indicators are present during model processing, whether timeouts are handled gracefully, and if users can cancel ongoing requests. Deduct 5 points if no loading indicators exist, 3 points if request cancellation is not possible, and 2 points if error states are not properly communicated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a conversation history or context management system?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the implementation maintains conversation history and manages context for ongoing interactions with the model. Check if previous exchanges are displayed, if context is preserved between requests, and if users can review or reference past interactions. Deduct 5 points if no history is maintained, 3 points if history exists but cannot be managed (cleared/exported), and 2 points if context between messages is not preserved. 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 API timeouts, network failures, malformed responses, 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. Syntax highlighting for code responses 2. Voice input/output capabilities 3. Response visualization tools 4. Message templates or shortcuts). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to send the same type of request) 2. Function modules unrelated to the DeepSeek model interaction (e.g., unrelated analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the interface). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating API logic/UI components/state management), code organization, and potential for maintenance and extension. 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 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 overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/webrtc-frontend-backend-springboot.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1690,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable whenever possible. Help me write a simple WebRTC frontend and backend code, with the backend using Spring Boot.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the WebRTC peer connection implementation complete?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the WebRTC peer connection flow including ICE candidate collection, SDP offer/answer exchange, and media stream handling. Check if appropriate event listeners for connection state changes are implemented. Score 0 if the core WebRTC functionality is missing, 5 if basic connection is implemented but lacks error handling, and 10 if a complete peer connection lifecycle with proper state management is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the signaling mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a proper signaling mechanism (WebSocket, HTTP polling, etc.) to exchange SDP offers/answers and ICE candidates between peers. Check if the signaling server in Spring Boot handles concurrent connections and maintains session states. Deduct 5 points if the signaling protocol doesn't include message types/formats, and 3 points if there's no heartbeat mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is media stream handling properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly handles getUserMedia for camera/microphone access, includes appropriate constraints for video/audio quality, and provides UI elements to display the media streams. Verify if it handles permission denials gracefully. Deduct 5 points if there's no media stream error handling, 3 points if stream quality configuration options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation handle NAT traversal techniques?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code configures ICE servers (STUN/TURN) correctly for NAT traversal. Check if the backend provides TURN credential generation with appropriate authentication. Deduct 5 points if only STUN is used without TURN fallback, 3 points if credentials aren't time-limited, and 5 points if no NAT traversal solution is implemented at all. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common WebRTC-specific issues (browser incompatibilities, reconnection after network interruptions, graceful degradation when media devices are unplugged, etc.) and provides friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Screen sharing functionality 2. Chat alongside video 3. Bandwidth adaptation 4. Video filters/effects). 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 signaling mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to WebRTC communication (e.g., complex authentication system when not needed) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that consume bandwidth). 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 (separate modules for signaling, peer connection management, UI components), error handling patterns, and build process configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Video/audio controls appear/disappear with smooth transitions 2) Connection status indicators provide clear visual feedback 3) Call initiation/termination has intuitive UI flow. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions during call setup/teardown, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/webrtc-frontend-player-index.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 865,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Write a WebRTC front-end player embedded in the center of index.html.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the WebRTC implementation complete and functional?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements WebRTC connectivity including getUserMedia(), RTCPeerConnection handling, and ICE candidate exchange. Code should handle media constraints properly (video/audio selection, resolution settings). Score 0 if WebRTC is not implemented, 5 if only basic connection is established, and 10 if it includes complete signaling, connection establishment and error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the video player properly embedded and responsive?",
+      "description": "Check if the video element is properly centered in index.html with responsive design principles. The player should maintain aspect ratio while resizing and adapt to different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points if not centered, 3 points if not responsive, and 4 points if aspect ratio distortion occurs on resize. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are UI controls and playback features implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of essential video controls (play/pause, volume, fullscreen) and additional features like picture-in-picture or stream quality selection. Controls should be accessible and intuitive. Deduct 2 points for each missing essential control, and 1 point for poor UI integration. Add 1 point for each well-implemented additional feature (max 3 points). Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper error handling and fallback mechanisms?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes comprehensive error handling for WebRTC-specific issues (permission denial, connection failures, browser incompatibility) and provides appropriate fallback solutions. Deduct 3 points if permission errors aren't handled, 3 points if connection failures lack recovery options, and 4 points if there's no browser compatibility fallback. 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 sudden disconnections, media stream interruptions, 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. Real-time video filters 2. Screen sharing capability 3. Recording functionality 4. Network quality indicators). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple volume control methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to WebRTC video playback (e.g., unnecessary analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations around the player). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core WebRTC 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 WebRTC logic, UI components, and event handling), proper use of promises/async patterns for WebRTC operations, 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 WebRTC functionality and UI. 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 for player controls (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system for captions and controls (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Video start/control response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animations for controls appear/disappear controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for connection status. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions in the UI, and 5 points for confusing connection status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/webrtc-sdp-exchange-example.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1349,
+  "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.\n\n```\nconst sdpOffer = \"v=0\\r\\no=- 123456789 2 IN IP4 127.0.0.1\\r\\n...\"; // Generated SDP Offer\nconst base64Offer = btoa(sdpOffer); // Base64 encoding\n\nconst formData = new FormData();\nformData.append(\"data\", base64Offer);\n\nfetch(\"http://127.0.0.1:8083/stream/123/channel/1/webrtc\", {\n    method: \"POST\",\n    body: formData\n})\n.then(response => response.text())\n.then(base64Answer => {\n    const sdpAnswer = atob(base64Answer); // Base64 decoding\n    // Set the SDP Answer to RTCPeerConnection\n    peerConnection.setRemoteDescription(new RTCSessionDescription({ type: \"answer\", sdp: sdpAnswer }));\n});\n```\n\nCould you provide a complete HTML example?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the WebRTC connection establishment process fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the complete WebRTC handshake flow including createOffer(), setLocalDescription(), setRemoteDescription(), and ICE candidate handling. Score 0 if core RTCPeerConnection logic is missing, 5 if only basic SDP exchange is implemented, and 10 if complete signaling with error handling is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the media stream acquisition and display functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether getUserMedia() is properly implemented to access camera/microphone, and whether video/audio streams are correctly displayed in HTML video elements. Deduct 5 points if media constraints are not configured, and 3 points if stream cleanup on disconnect is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the server communication protocol designed with proper error handling?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the fetch API implementation includes proper HTTP status code handling, network timeout management, and retry mechanisms for failed requests. Deduct 5 points if no error boundaries exist for server communication failures. Check whether Base64 encoding/decoding has validation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the complete WebRTC lifecycle management constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete connection lifecycle management, including connection state monitoring, cleanup on page unload, and ICE connection state handling. Deduct 5 points if peer connection cleanup is not implemented, and 3 points if connection state callbacks are missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper resource disposal.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as media permission denial, network interruption, SDP parsing errors, 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 WebRTC experience (e.g., 1. Real-time bandwidth monitoring and quality adaptation 2. Screen sharing capabilities 3. Recording functionality with playback controls 4. Audio/video filters or effects). 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 media stream handlers coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to WebRTC streaming (e.g., built-in file upload system) 3. Fancy effects that affect streaming performance (e.g., heavy CSS animations during video calls). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core streaming 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 WebRTC logic/UI components/server communication), proper async/await usage, and error boundary implementation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or promises are not properly handled; deduct 5 points if the code lacks proper separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if memory leaks exist in media stream handling. 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) Video element aspect ratio maintenance. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic video 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) Media control button feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Connection status transition animations controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indicators for connection states (connecting/connected/disconnected) 4) Smooth video rendering without stuttering. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky video transitions, and 5 points for unclear connection status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/website-design-login-registration-carousel.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 381,
+  "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 and functional. Design a website with 5 or more pages that includes login functionality, registration functionality, and a carousel/slider. You are free to add other features as you see fit. Use JavaScript for the design.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the multi-page website structure properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether 5 or more distinct pages are implemented with proper navigation structure. Each page should have a unique purpose and content. Verify that pages are properly linked with navigation elements (navbar, menu, footer links). Score 0 if fewer than 5 pages are implemented, 5 if the required number of pages exists but with structural issues, and 10 if the pages are well-organized with clear navigation paths and semantic HTML structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the login functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the login system includes form validation, proper error handling, and secure authentication practices. Check for input validation (email format, required fields), error messages, remember me functionality, and session management. Deduct 3 points if validation is incomplete, 3 points if error handling is missing or unclear, and 5 points if session management is not implemented. Award full points only if the login connects to a backend or simulates user authentication with local storage.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the registration functionality properly designed?",
+      "description": "Assess the registration system for comprehensive form validation, password strength requirements, duplicate username/email checking, and confirmation mechanisms. Verify that the registration form includes proper client-side validation (password format, email validation, required fields) and provides clear feedback. Deduct 3 points for missing field validation, 3 points for lack of password strength indicators, and 4 points if there's no confirmation step or success feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the carousel/slider component fully functional?",
+      "description": "Review the carousel implementation for smooth transitions, responsive design, proper controls (next/prev buttons, indicators), and automatic rotation functionality. Check whether it handles different image sizes appropriately and works across various viewport sizes. Deduct 3 points if navigation controls are missing, 3 points if automatic rotation is not implemented, 2 points if it's not responsive, and 2 points if transitions are not smooth. 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 form input errors, invalid URLs, API 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. Dark mode toggle 2. Dynamic content loading 3. Interactive form components 4. User preference storage 5. Animated page transitions). 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 systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the requirements 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 UI components, services, and utilities), code organization (proper file structure), and reuse of common components. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 2 points if there's no separation of concerns between HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. 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 design language across all 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 responsive?",
+      "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) Fully responsive design that works on different screen sizes. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-communication/website-registration-login-music-black-green.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1672,
+  "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. Design a website for me that includes a registration and login system with verification code, capability to automatically play music, with an overall black color scheme and green text.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the registration and login system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete registration and login system, including user input validation, database interaction, session management, and proper error handling. Score 0 if basic form submission is missing, 5 if only client-side validation exists without server integration, and 10 if the system includes secure password storage (hashing), proper session management, and database connectivity.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the verification code functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the verification code system includes: 1) Code generation with appropriate complexity, 2) Visual presentation with sufficient obfuscation, 3) Server-side validation, and 4) Expiration mechanism. Deduct 3 points if the code is too simple (e.g., static or predictable), 3 points if there's no server-side validation, and 4 points if there's no expiration mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the automatic music playback functionality effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements automatic music playback that: 1) Handles autoplay policies correctly (with fallback), 2) Provides user controls for pause/play/volume, 3) Includes a playlist or music selection, and 4) Manages appropriate loading and error states. Deduct 3 points if modern autoplay restrictions aren't addressed, 3 points if basic controls are missing, and 4 points if there's no error handling for unavailable audio files. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the UI fulfill the black and green color scheme requirement?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation properly applies a black background with green text throughout the website with: 1) Consistent application across all pages, 2) Proper contrast ratios for accessibility, 3) Thoughtful application to interactive elements, and 4) Consideration of visual hierarchy. Deduct 3 points if the contrast ratio is below accessibility standards, 3 points if the scheme is inconsistently applied, and 4 points if the result is visually jarring or unreadable. 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 form inputs, network issues, authentication 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. Dynamic background effects that respond to music, 2. Interactive form validation with visual feedback, 3. Custom animated loading indicators matching the theme). 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 authentication methods without purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core requirements (e.g., unnecessary social media integrations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations that slow page loading). 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 frontend/backend concerns, MVC pattern usage), security practices (XSS prevention, CSRF protection, SQL injection prevention), and 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 security best practices are ignored. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Proper use of the black and green color scheme with appropriate accents 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 poor implementation of the required color scheme, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for the registration/login process. 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/wechat-chat-window-vue3-ant-design.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1237,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Now, a page similar to a WeChat chat window is needed. Please write such a page using Ant Design + Vue 3. The page only needs to display chat messages without message sending functionality. The message data consists of multiple records returned from the backend.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue 3 + Ant Design integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the project correctly sets up Vue 3 with Ant Design, including proper component imports, configuration of Ant Design Vue plugin, and CSS/Less imports. Verify that the package.json includes the correct dependencies (ant-design-vue, vue@3.x). Deduct 5 points if components are imported incorrectly, 5 points if global styles are missing, and 3 points if the version compatibility is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the chat window UI structure properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the component hierarchy and structure of the chat window. It should include at least: a container component, message list component, and individual message components with proper differentiation between sent and received messages. Score 0 if the structure is missing, 5 if basic structure is implemented but lacks proper organization, and 10 if the component breakdown is logical and follows Vue 3 best practices with proper props/emit usage.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the message rendering implementation complete?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly handles different message types (text, image, system notification, etc.) from the backend data and renders them appropriately. Verify that the component uses v-for with proper key binding for message lists. Deduct 5 points if message types aren't properly differentiated, 3 points if keys are missing or improper, and 3 points if the rendering isn't responsive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation mimic WeChat's visual style?",
+      "description": "Check if the UI resembles WeChat's chat interface, including bubble styles, colors, message alignment (left for received, right for sent), timestamps, and avatars. Score 0 if it doesn't resemble WeChat at all, 5 if it has basic similarities, and 10 if it closely resembles WeChat's design with attention to detail like bubble tails, proper spacing, and consistent styling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as missing message fields, empty messages, very long messages without breaks, special characters in messages, etc.) and provide appropriate fallbacks or 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. Message read status indicators 2. Message time grouping 3. Automatic scroll to newest messages 4. Skeleton loading for messages). 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 methods for message display) 2. Function modules unrelated to chat display (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex transitions for every message). 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 and data handling logic), composition API usage, and type safety (TypeScript or PropTypes). Deduct 5 points if global state is used unnecessarily; deduct 5 points if the code has high duplication; 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 overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching consistent with WeChat's palette 2) Proper layout spacing between messages and within message components 3) Professional font system with appropriate sizing and contrast. 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) Smooth scrolling through message history 2) Appropriate loading states when fetching messages 3) Clear visual differentiation between message types and senders. Deduct 5 points for jerky scrolling, 3 points for missing loading states, and 5 points for confusing message attribution (unclear who sent what). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}