@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/web_applications-web_visuals/vue3-categorized-video-platform-with-upload.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 821,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. I am a code expert. Please let me use my professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. I'll make sure the code I provide is executable. Can you help me create a website that can preview videos? The website should include directory categories, where users can view video lists under each category and click to watch videos. It should also have video upload functionality. The directory categories are created by administrators, while others can upload and preview videos. Let's use the Vue3.js framework for the frontend.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue3 application structure properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the code correctly implements Vue3 component architecture, including proper use of Composition API, reactive state management, and component lifecycle hooks. Check for proper directory structure (views, components, services, etc.). Score 0 if Vue3 is not used, 5 if basic implementation exists but lacks optimization, and 10 if fully implements Vue3 best practices including proper component composition and script setup syntax.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the video category directory system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify that the directory category system supports hierarchical structure, proper navigation between categories, and displays category-specific video lists. Check for admin-only category management features (create, edit, delete, reorder). Deduct 5 points if the hierarchy is limited to one level, 3 points if search/filter functionality within categories is missing, and 5 points if category metadata (description, thumbnail, etc.) is not supported. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the video preview functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the video player component includes essential features like play/pause, volume control, progress bar, full screen, and playback speed. Check for preview thumbnails on hover, custom video controls, and adaptive bitrate streaming support. Deduct 5 points if the player lacks responsive design, 5 points if it doesn't handle different video formats, and 3 points if it doesn't support keyboard shortcuts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the video upload function complete and secure?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the upload functionality includes progress indicators, file type validation, size limitations, chunk upload for large files, and proper error handling. Check for security features like MIME type verification and virus scanning integration. Deduct 5 points if resume upload capability is missing, 5 points if preview generation doesn't happen during upload, and 3 points if metadata editing (title, description, tags) is not available. 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, video loading failures, invalid file uploads, 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 video recommendations 2. Automated video chaptering 3. Interactive comments with timestamps 4. Picture-in-picture mode while browsing). 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 video players coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video preview/upload (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during browsing). 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/state/view layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast scrolling of video lists, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Web Visuals",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-web_visuals/vue3-creating-openlayers.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 863,
+  "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. Vue3 creating OpenLayers",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the OpenLayers map initialization fully implemented with Vue3?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly initializes an OpenLayers map within the Vue3 component lifecycle (mounted/onMounted). Verify that the map instance is correctly created with proper viewport size, initial center coordinates, and zoom level. The map should be properly destroyed when the component is unmounted. Score 0 if map initialization is missing, 5 if basic initialization exists but lacks proper lifecycle management, and 10 if fully implemented with reactive properties.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are Vue3 Composition API features properly utilized for OpenLayers integration?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code makes appropriate use of Vue3's Composition API (ref, reactive, computed, watch) to manage OpenLayers objects and their states. Check for proper reactive wrappers around map objects, map layers, and map controls. Deduct 5 points if only Options API is used, deduct 3 points if reactivity is not properly implemented with map state changes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a comprehensive layer management system implemented?",
+      "description": "Review if the code implements a flexible layer management system that allows adding/removing different types of layers (Vector, Tile, WMS, etc.). Check if layer visibility and properties can be controlled reactively through Vue components. Deduct 5 points if only basic layers are implemented without customization options, deduct 3 points if layer management lacks reactivity. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are OpenLayers events properly integrated with the Vue3 event system?",
+      "description": "Assess if OpenLayers events (click, pointermove, etc.) are properly connected to Vue3's event handling system. Check for proper event listeners setup and cleanup in component lifecycle hooks. Map interactions should update Vue reactive state, and Vue state changes should be reflected in the map. Deduct 5 points if events are not properly cleaned up, and deduct 3 points if there's no bidirectional synchronization. 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 failed map loading, layer loading errors, invalid coordinates, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper null checks before accessing properties, try-catch blocks for error-prone operations, and graceful fallbacks. 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. Custom Vue3 composables for map features 2. Transition animations for layer switching 3. Integration with Vue3's Teleport for map controls). 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 OpenLayers functionality already available through API (e.g., reimplementing zoom controls) 2. Unnecessary wrapper components that add complexity without value 3. Heavy visual effects that impair map performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core map functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of map service, component logic, and UI elements), TypeScript usage for OpenLayers types, and proper project structure. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if OpenLayers instances are not properly typed; deduct 5 points if the code lacks reusable composables for common map operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the map UI follows modern design principles: 1) Clean map controls with proper spacing and sizing 2) Consistent styling between Vue components and map elements 3) Responsive design that adapts to different viewport sizes. Deduct 3 points for each overlapping control element, 5 points for inconsistent styling between Vue components and map elements, and 5 points for non-responsive map layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the map interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the map interactions perform well: 1) Map pan/zoom operations respond within 100ms 2) Layer switching animations complete within 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for user interactions with map features. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag in map operations, 3 points for jerky animations during transitions, and 5 points if the map becomes unresponsive during data loading operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Web Visuals",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-web_visuals/vue3-element-ui-weather-app.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1217,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please provide me with a free weather service application for a frontend using Vue 3 + Element UI JavaScript.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the weather service API integration complete and properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes appropriate API calls to a free weather service (such as OpenWeatherMap, WeatherAPI, etc.) with proper error handling and rate limiting considerations. The implementation should include API key management, proper request formatting, and response parsing. Deduct 5 points if error handling is missing, 3 points if there's no loading state during API calls, and 5 points if the API integration is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the Vue 3 application properly utilize Composition API?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation leverages Vue 3's Composition API effectively with reactive state management, computed properties, and lifecycle hooks. Check for proper use of ref(), reactive(), watch(), watchEffect(), and onMounted(). Deduct 3 points for using Options API instead of Composition API, 5 points for global state management issues, and 3 points for improper reactivity management. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is Element UI integration complete with appropriate weather visualization components?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of Element UI components such as cards, sliders, dropdowns, and tables to display weather data. The components should be properly themed and responsive. Look for customized weather icons, temperature displays, and forecast layouts. Deduct 5 points if basic Element UI components aren't used, 3 points for inconsistent styling, and 5 points if the components aren't properly responsive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are key weather application features implemented and functional?",
+      "description": "Check if the application includes essential weather features: current conditions, forecasts (hourly and multi-day), location search/geolocation, unit conversion (°C/°F), and weather alerts if available. Deduct 3 points for each missing core feature, 2 points for incomplete implementation of features, and 5 points if the data visualization is not intuitive. 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 failures, network interruption, invalid location inputs, 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. Weather-based theme adaptation 2. Historical weather data visualization 3. Weather alerts with push notifications 4. Weather impact on daily activities suggestions). 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 API calls for the same data 2. Function modules unrelated to weather (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 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 services, components, composables), proper folder structure, code comments, and build process setup. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code lacks reusable components; deduct 5 points if there is no proper build configuration or environment variable management. 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 weather app design principles: 1) Weather-appropriate color scheme (cool blues for rain, warm yellows for sun) 2) Proper layout spacing with responsive design 3) Professional typography for temperature and condition displays (clear temperature numbers ≥ 18px). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered section, 5 points for a visually jarring interface, 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 dynamic effects conform to modern web app standards: 1) Smooth location transitions 2) Responsive weather data updates 3) Intuitive interactions for changing views/settings. Deduct 5 points for laggy transitions between views, 3 points for jerky animations, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Web Visuals",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-web_visuals/vue3-openlayers-gcj02-tile-coordinate-display.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1480,
+  "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. Using vue3/ts/OpenLayers 10 + proj4js with the gcj02 coordinate system, load gcj02 tiles and display gcj02 coordinate points. Please provide a real, usable example with custom deployed tiles.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue3/TypeScript setup properly configured?",
+      "description": "Verify that the project correctly sets up Vue3 with TypeScript, including proper tsconfig.json configuration, Vue SFCs with TypeScript, and proper type definitions. Check if the component structure follows Vue3 composition API best practices with proper setup() function or <script setup> syntax. Score 0 if Vue3/TS is not used, 5 if basic setup exists but with type issues, and 10 if properly configured with strict typing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is OpenLayers 10 correctly integrated with the GCJ02 coordinate system?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether OpenLayers is properly initialized and configured to work with the GCJ02 coordinate system. Check if the correct versions of dependencies are used (OpenLayers 10+). Verify that the map projection is properly set up and the transformation between coordinate systems is correctly implemented. Score 0 if OpenLayers is missing or incompatible version, 5 if basic integration exists but with projection issues, and 10 if fully functional with proper GCJ02 support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is Proj4js correctly implemented for coordinate transformations?",
+      "description": "Check if proj4js is properly imported and configured with the correct definition for GCJ02. Verify that the transformation functions between different coordinate systems (e.g., WGS84, GCJ02) are implemented correctly. Test if coordinate conversions work accurately at different locations in China. Deduct 5 points if transformation accuracy is off by more than 2 meters, and 3 points if the proj4 definition is incomplete.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are custom GCJ02 tiles properly loaded and displayed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code successfully loads and displays custom GCJ02 tiles. Check if the tile source is correctly configured with proper URL template, appropriate zoom levels, and tile size. Verify that the code includes configuration for a custom tile server deployment rather than just using public tile services. Deduct 5 points if tiles don't load properly, 3 points if zoom levels are improperly configured, and 5 points if no custom deployment example is provided.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as tile loading failures, network interruption, incorrect coordinate inputs, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Interactive coordinate conversion tool 2. Visual comparison between WGS84 and GCJ02 3. Performance optimization for tile loading). 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 perform coordinate transformations) 2. Function modules unrelated to the mapping requirement (e.g., unnecessary UI components) 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 map services/UI components/coordinate utilities), type safety with TypeScript, 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 properly configured for Vue3/TS. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the map UI follows modern design principles: 1) Clean control layout (zoom buttons, layer switchers, etc.) 2) Proper information hierarchy for displaying coordinates 3) Responsive design that works across device sizes. Deduct 3 points for each misaligned map control, 5 points for poorly contrasting markers against the map background, and 5 points for non-responsive layouts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the map interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the map interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Responsive pan/zoom without lag (≤ 100ms) 2) Smooth transitions when changing layers or zoom levels 3) Clear visual feedback when selecting points or features. Deduct 5 points for jerky map movements, 3 points for delayed tile loading without placeholders, and 5 points for unresponsive point clicking. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Web Visuals",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-web_visuals/vue3-vite-gis-2d-3d-layers.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 286,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please provide an example of a GIS project implemented with Vue 3 and Vite, with layer functionality supporting both 2D and 3D. The map should be implemented based on OpenLayers and Cesium.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the GIS project structure properly set up with Vue 3 and Vite?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code correctly configures a Vue 3 project using Vite build system, with proper directory structure following Vue best practices. Review the package.json for correct dependencies (vue, vite, typescript if applicable). Verify the proper configuration of essential plugins like vue-router for navigation, pinia/vuex for state management, and any GIS-specific plugins. Score 0 if Vue 3 + Vite setup is missing, 5 if basic setup exists but lacks organization, and 10 if project structure is comprehensive with proper separation of concerns.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are OpenLayers and Cesium properly integrated for 2D/3D functionality?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the integration of OpenLayers for 2D mapping and Cesium for 3D visualization. Check if both libraries are properly imported, initialized without conflicts, and have appropriate version compatibility. Verify if the code includes a seamless toggle mechanism between 2D and 3D views while preserving the current viewport position. Deduct 5 points if only one library is implemented, 3 points if libraries are implemented but poorly integrated, and 2 points if the 2D/3D transition is jarring or loses state. Full score requires both libraries working harmoniously with smooth transitions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the layer system comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the layer management system for both 2D and 3D modes. Check for layer types support (vector, raster, WMS, WMTS, GeoJSON, KML), layer operations (add, remove, toggle visibility, opacity control, reordering), and consistent layer representation across both OpenLayers and Cesium contexts. Deduct 3 points for each missing essential layer type, 5 points if layer persistence between 2D/3D modes is absent, and 5 points if layer styling capabilities are limited. Full score requires comprehensive layer management that works identically across both mapping engines.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper integration of spatial data sources and formats?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of data source handling for common GIS formats. Check if the code handles vector formats (GeoJSON, KML, TopoJSON), raster formats (GeoTIFF, raster tiles), and services (WMS, WMTS, WFS). Verify if the code implements proper data loading patterns with error handling, caching strategies, and on-demand loading. Deduct 3 points for each major format not supported, 5 points if data loading lacks error handling, and 5 points if there's no optimization for large datasets. Full score requires comprehensive format support with optimized loading strategies.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as map loading failures, data source errors, projection mismatches, browser compatibility issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper async operation handling, especially for map initialization and data loading. 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 GIS experience (e.g., 1. Advanced spatial analysis tools 2. Real-time collaborative mapping 3. AI-assisted feature recognition 4. Time-series animation for temporal data 5. Mobile-friendly responsive controls). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate map implementations that serve the same purpose 2. Unnecessary third-party libraries when OpenLayers/Cesium already provide the functionality 3. Overly complex custom implementations of features that are available in standard libraries. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core mapping functionality is obscured by unnecessary code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating map services, UI components, and state management), component reusability, and appropriate use of Vue 3 composition API or options API. Check if the code implements lazy loading for heavy mapping libraries, employs TypeScript for type safety, and uses proper build optimizations for map assets. Deduct 3 points if global state is used excessively, 3 points if mapping libraries are not lazy-loaded, 4 points if there's no type safety. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional GIS application standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the map UI follows modern GIS application design principles: 1) Clear distinction between map canvas and control panels 2) Intuitive layer control interface 3) Professional map controls (scale bar, north arrow, legend) 4) Accessibility considerations for map interactions. Deduct 3 points for cluttered map interface, 3 points for missing essential map controls, 4 points for poor contrast between map and overlay elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the map interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the map interactions conform to standard GIS application expectations: 1) Map pan/zoom responds within 50ms 2) Layer toggling updates visual immediately 3) 2D/3D transitions are smooth and maintain spatial context 4) Custom interaction tools work intuitively. Deduct 3 points for laggy map rendering, 3 points for slow layer updates, 4 points for jerky 2D/3D transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Web Visuals",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-web_visuals/vue3-webgis-overlay-bar-charts-offline-maps.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 834,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure the generated code is executable where possible. Vue3 combined with WebGIS to overlay bar charts on offline city and county base maps",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue3 integration with WebGIS properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly integrates Vue3 with WebGIS libraries (like OpenLayers, Leaflet, or ArcGIS JS API). Check for proper component architecture, reactive data handling with Composition API, and lifecycle management when rendering the map. Score 0 if no integration exists, 5 if basic integration exists but with errors, and 10 if the integration is flawlessly implemented with proper Vue3 paradigms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the offline map functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of offline maps by checking for local tile management, proper configuration of tile sources, coordinate system support, and graceful fallback when network is unavailable. Verify that all city and county boundaries are correctly rendered. Deduct 3 points if tile caching logic is missing, 5 points if the offline mode has significant rendering issues, and 3 points if no feedback is provided when map data is unavailable. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the bar charts correctly overlaid and georeferenced on the map?",
+      "description": "Check whether the bar charts are accurately positioned on the map using geographic coordinates and properly scaled across zoom levels. Verify that the charts include features like tooltips, dynamic updates, and appropriate visual encoding. Deduct 5 points if charts don't align with geographic features, 3 points if they lack responsive scaling during zoom operations, and 5 points if the visual design makes the underlying map illegible. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there an efficient data binding mechanism between map features and chart data?",
+      "description": "Assess how the code establishes connections between geospatial features and the corresponding data for visualization. Check for proper data normalization, efficient data structure design, and optimization for rendering performance. Score 0 if there's no clear data binding strategy, 5 if a basic strategy exists but with performance issues, and 10 if an optimized and scalable approach is implemented with efficient reactivity mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations such as missing map tiles, malformed GeoJSON data, undefined chart values, browser resize events, and touch/mobile interactions. Code with strong robustness should provide appropriate error boundaries, fallback UI states, and defensive programming techniques. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average coverage of edge cases, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Interactive filtering of chart data directly on the map, 2. Time-series animation capabilities, 3. Custom themeable visualization styles, 4. Comparative analysis tools between regions). 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 map layer management implementations, 2. Excessive chart libraries when simpler solutions would suffice, 3. Fancy effects that affect map rendering performance (e.g., unnecessary animations or high-frequency updates). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of map services, data services, and visualization components), unit test coverage for critical components, and build optimization for map assets. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if component reusability is poor or prop drilling is excessive; deduct 5 points if no optimization for map tile loading and chart rendering exists. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional cartographic and visualization standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows both cartographic and data visualization principles: 1) Appropriate color schemes for both map features and chart elements, 2) Proper visual hierarchy between base map and data overlays, 3) Legible labels and chart annotations across different zoom levels. Deduct 3 points for poor contrast between charts and map, 5 points for information overload obscuring important geographical features, and 5 points for ineffective visual encoding of data variables. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the map interaction and chart responsiveness smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interaction design meets user expectations: 1) Map pan/zoom operations remain smooth with chart overlays, 2) Chart interactions (hover, click) provide immediate feedback (≤100ms), 3) Appropriate level-of-detail rendering at different zoom levels. Deduct 5 points for laggy map operations with charts visible, 3 points for charts that don't update properly during map navigation, and 5 points if the application becomes unresponsive on mobile devices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Web Visuals",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-web_visuals/web-album-case-javascript-implementation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1545,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that any code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Implement a web album case using JavaScript.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core album functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements image display, thumbnail generation, navigation controls (previous/next), and zoom functionality through HTML/JavaScript. Check if it includes proper image loading mechanisms, error handling for broken images, and support for multiple image formats (JPEG, PNG, WebP, etc.). Score 0 if basic image display is not working, 5 if only static display is implemented, and 10 if all core album features including zoom, navigation, and format support are fully functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the image management and organization system implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the album includes categorization, tagging, search functionality, and sorting options (by date, name, size). Check if metadata extraction (EXIF data) is implemented and if users can create custom albums or collections. Deduct 5 points if no search functionality exists, 3 points if sorting options are limited to basic name/date only. Full score requires comprehensive organization features with metadata support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the image upload and processing mechanism properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the upload system supports drag-and-drop, multiple file selection, progress indicators, and client-side image optimization (resizing, compression). Evaluate if thumbnail generation is automatic and if there's a preview before upload confirmation. Deduct 5 points if no progress feedback exists, 3 points if batch upload is not supported, and 2 points if no client-side optimization is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the responsive design and cross-device compatibility achieved?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the album adapts seamlessly across different screen sizes (mobile, tablet, desktop) with appropriate touch gestures for mobile devices (pinch-to-zoom, swipe navigation). Check if the grid layout adjusts dynamically and if touch interactions are smooth. Deduct 5 points if mobile experience is poor, 3 points if touch gestures are unresponsive, and 2 points if layout breaks on specific screen sizes.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures during image loading, invalid file formats, memory limitations, browser compatibility issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include retry mechanisms, graceful degradation, and proper error boundaries, 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 user experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered image recognition and auto-tagging 2. Virtual reality or 360° image support 3. Advanced filters and editing tools 4. Social sharing with custom watermarks 5. Slideshow with background music). 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 image loading libraries coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to album functionality (e.g., built-in games or unrelated widgets) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex particle systems or heavy animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core album 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 image processing/UI components/data management layers), code organization, and maintainability. Check for proper error handling, memory management for large images, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or poor separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if memory leaks are detected during image navigation; deduct 5 points if no lazy loading or performance optimization is implemented. 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 with proper contrast ratios for accessibility 2) Consistent spacing and grid system (following 8px grid principle) 3) Professional typography with readable font sizes and hierarchy 4) Clean, minimal interface that doesn't distract from images. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for poor color contrast or accessibility issues, and 5 points for inconsistent spacing or typography. 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) Image loading transitions and fade-in effects ≤ 300ms 2) Smooth zoom animations without jank (60fps) 3) Responsive hover states and click feedback ≤ 100ms 4) Intuitive navigation with clear visual cues 5) Smooth thumbnail scrolling and grid transitions. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for missing hover states or feedback, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Web Visuals",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-web_visuals/web-editor-for-tombstone-design.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 862,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. As a senior full-stack engineer, you need to provide a web editor technical solution.\n\nRequirements:\n1. The uploaded image shows the rough UI effect.\n2. Support dragging, setting, and adding controls/components/images through the web editor to draw the front and back of tombstones.\n3. Support identification of fonts, font sizes, content, coordinates, and other information in the editor.\n4. Frontend uses Vue 3 and Element Plus.\n5. Backend uses Spring Boot, MyBatis Plus, and MySQL.\nPlease provide a runnable code demo.\n\nFirst, please repeat my requirements to confirm that you truly understand my needs. After I reply with confirmation, please provide me with runnable code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the web editor UI fully implemented according to the uploaded image?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implemented UI matches the uploaded reference image. Check for proper layout, color scheme, and overall visual fidelity. The UI should include all main components shown in the reference: toolbar, canvas area, property panel, etc. Score 0 if the UI differs substantially, 5 if it has minor inconsistencies, and 10 if it faithfully represents the reference.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the drag-and-drop functionality for tombstone editor components properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code includes a complete drag-and-drop system for placing controls/components/images on both the front and back of tombstones. Check for proper event handling (dragstart, dragover, drop), position calculation, and snapping behaviors. Score 0 if drag-and-drop is missing, 5 if basic functionality exists with limitations, and 10 if it's fully featured with smooth interaction.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the component property controls comprehensive and properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the editor allows identification and modification of all required properties: fonts, font sizes, content, coordinates, etc. The property panel should update dynamically based on selected components and provide appropriate input controls. Score 0 if property controls are missing, 5 if basic properties can be edited but with limitations, and 10 if all required properties are fully editable with validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the front/back tombstone switching mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the dual-side editing capability, allowing users to switch between front and back views while maintaining proper state. Check if components placed on each side remain in their correct positions when switching views. Score 0 if switching is not implemented, 5 if it exists but has state persistence issues, and 10 if it works flawlessly with proper state management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input values, component overlapping, undo/redo edge cases, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time collaborative editing 2. AI-assisted layout suggestions 3. Template system for common tombstone designs). 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 component selection mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to tombstone editing (e.g., an unnecessary social sharing system) 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/view/data layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check if Vue 3 Composition API is used effectively. Verify proper integration with Element Plus. 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 full-stack integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the frontend-backend integration is properly implemented: 1) Proper API design with RESTful principles 2) Efficient data exchange between Vue 3 and Spring Boot 3) Well-designed database schema with MyBatis Plus integration. Check if the tombstone designs can be saved to and loaded from the database. Deduct 5 points for missing API documentation, 3 points for inefficient data transfer patterns, and 5 points for poor database design. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Web Visuals",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}