@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-file_management/electron-vue-file-management-sidebar.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 363,
+  "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. Implement a file management system similar to VSCode's left sidebar directory panel using Electron + Vue 3.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the directory tree structure implementation complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete hierarchical directory tree that can display folders and files with proper indentation, icons, and visual hierarchy. Check if it supports both file and folder operations (create, rename, delete). Score 0 if the directory structure is not implemented, 5 if only basic display is implemented, and 10 if it fully mimics VSCode's directory panel functionality including drag-and-drop capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Electron and Vue 3 integration correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly integrates Electron for native file system access and Vue 3 for UI rendering. Verify if IPC (Inter-Process Communication) is set up between the main and renderer processes, with proper error handling for file system operations. Deduct 5 points if there's no separation between main and renderer processes, and 3 points if Vue 3 Composition API isn't utilized effectively. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are file system operations implemented with appropriate error handling?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper implementations for reading directory contents, creating files/folders, deleting, renaming, and moving files with comprehensive error handling. Check if asynchronous operations are handled correctly and if there's a loading state during file operations. Deduct 5 points for missing critical operations (like delete or rename), and 3 points for inadequate error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include VSCode-like interactive features?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code includes VSCode-specific features like context menus on right-click, keyboard shortcuts for operations, file icons based on file types, and collapse/expand folder functionality. Check for additional features like file filtering or search functionality. Deduct 3 points for each missing key VSCode feature, and award full 10 points only if the implementation closely mimics VSCode's sidebar behavior.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as permission errors, missing files, large directory structures, special characters in filenames, 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. File preview on hover 2. Custom file grouping options 3. Recently modified files highlighting). 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 refresh the file tree) 2. Function modules unrelated to file management (e.g., a built-in text editor when it's just supposed to be a sidebar) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when expanding folders). 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 file system logic/UI components/event handling), component reusability, and build process configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the Electron security practices are not followed (like proper Content-Security-Policy). 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 VSCode's design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme matching VSCode's themes 2) Proper layout spacing and indentation for directory levels 3) Professional icon system for different file types. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent visual elements, 5 points for a design that significantly deviates from VSCode's aesthetic, and 5 points for poor visual hierarchy in the directory structure. 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 VSCode's interaction patterns: 1) Immediate feedback when selecting files/folders 2) Smooth animations for expanding/collapsing folders 3) Responsive context menus without delay. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy interactions when handling large directories, and 5 points for unintuitive interaction patterns that differ from VSCode. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/file-tag-management-platform.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 684,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Create a file tag management platform where users can upload files and add multiple tags (such as 'work', 'important', etc.) to each file, supporting quick filtering of files by tags.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload functionality through HTML/JavaScript, including drag-and-drop upload, progress bars, file type validation, and size limits. Check if multiple file formats are supported (documents, images, videos, etc.) and if upload status feedback is provided. Score 0 if core upload logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload is implemented, and 10 if all upload features including validation and progress tracking are fully included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the tag management system comprehensively designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the tag system includes complete CRUD operations: creating new tags, editing existing tags, deleting unused tags, and batch tag operations. Check if tag autocomplete, tag hierarchy/categories, and tag color coding are implemented. Deduct 5 points if tag validation is missing, and 3 points if duplicate tag prevention is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the file filtering and search mechanism efficient and accurate?",
+      "description": "Check whether the filtering system supports multiple tag combinations (AND/OR logic), fuzzy search by filename, date range filtering, and file type filtering. Evaluate if real-time search results update as users type and if advanced filtering options are provided. Deduct 5 points if search performance is poor (>500ms response time), and 3 points if filtering logic is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data persistence and file management architecture robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system includes proper data storage (local storage/database integration), file metadata management, and backup mechanisms. Check if file versioning, bulk operations (delete, move, export), and data export/import functionality are implemented. Deduct 5 points if data consistency is not maintained, and 3 points if file integrity checks are missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper architecture.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as file upload failures, network interruption, invalid file types, storage quota exceeded, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered auto-tagging suggestions 2. File preview thumbnails with quick actions 3. Tag-based file sharing links 4. Visual tag cloud representation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file sorting mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file management (e.g., a built-in text editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during file operations). 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 file handling/UI/storage 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) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for file lists and tag displays. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic file/tag 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) File upload feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Tag filtering response time ≤ 200ms 3) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 4) Clear visual focus guidance during file operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual lag during file list updates, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/file-upload-question-organizer-download.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1800,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable and functional. Help me create a webpage that allows users to upload files including Word, Excel, and PDF formats. The webpage should help me organize the questions contained in these files, format them properly, and provide a download option.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly handles file uploads with appropriate input controls, MIME type validation, and error handling for Word, Excel, and PDF formats. Check if the code includes progress indicators and clear user feedback during upload. Score 0 if file upload is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload without validation is present, and 10 if complete with validation, progress indicators, and proper error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the file parsing mechanism correctly implemented for multiple formats?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can accurately extract content from Word (.doc/.docx), Excel (.xls/.xlsx), and PDF files. Check if appropriate libraries are used (e.g., mammoth.js for Word, SheetJS for Excel, PDF.js for PDF). Deduct 3 points for each unsupported format. Deduct 5 points if the parsing is unreliable or incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is question extraction and organization functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code can intelligently identify questions from extracted content using pattern matching, machine learning, or rule-based approaches. Verify if questions are grouped by topic, type, or difficulty. Score 0 if question extraction is not implemented, 5 if basic extraction without categorization is present, and 10 if sophisticated extraction with proper organization is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is proper formatting and export functionality provided?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code allows users to format extracted questions (adjusting styles, rearranging, editing) and provides export options in various formats. Check if the exported files maintain formatting integrity. Deduct 3 points if formatting options are limited, 5 points if export functionality is missing key formats, and 5 points if the exported content loses critical formatting. 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 corrupted files, extremely large files, unsupported formats, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered question categorization 2. Question difficulty estimation 3. Interactive question preview with formatting). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file parsing libraries for the same file type) 2. Function modules unrelated to question extraction (e.g., a built-in social media sharing system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during file processing). 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 file handling/parsing/UI layers), error handling strategy, 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 separation between UI 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) Clear visual hierarchy for file upload, processing, and download sections. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor information architecture. 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) File upload feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Clear visual indication during file processing with accurate progress reporting 3) Intuitive question organization interface with drag-and-drop capability. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for laggy UI during file processing, and 5 points for confusing navigation between upload, organization, and download steps. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/file-upload-to-cloud-server.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1334,
+  "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. Design a file upload process that uploads files to a cloud file server, and implement it with code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload implementation fully functional?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file selection, validation, and upload functionality. Check if it handles multiple file types, size restrictions, and provides proper upload controls. Score 0 if core upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works but lacks validation, and 10 if it includes robust file selection, validation, and upload mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the cloud storage integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper authentication and integration with cloud services (AWS S3, Google Cloud Storage, Azure Blob, etc.). Check for proper credential management, endpoint configuration, and error handling. Deduct 5 points if credentials are hardcoded, 3 points if there's no proper error handling for cloud service failures. Full score requires secure authentication, proper bucket/container configuration, and comprehensive error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include progress tracking and status updates?",
+      "description": "Check if the code provides real-time progress updates during file upload, including percentage completion, transfer speed, and estimated time remaining. Verify that users receive clear visual feedback about the upload status (queued, uploading, completed, failed). Deduct 5 points if there's no progress tracking, and 3 points if status updates are incomplete or unclear. Give 10 points for comprehensive progress tracking with appropriate UI elements.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper error handling and retry mechanism?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code handles common upload failures (network interruptions, server errors, timeouts) and provides retry capabilities. Check if it implements chunked uploads for large files to handle interruptions gracefully. Deduct 5 points if error handling is minimal, and 3 points if retry functionality is missing. Full score requires comprehensive error handling, user-friendly error messages, and intelligent retry mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases such as zero-byte files, files with special characters in names, very large files, simultaneous uploads, and browser compatibility issues. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these scenarios, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no edge cases are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Drag-and-drop file upload 2. Image preview before upload 3. Automatic file compression 4. Resumable uploads 5. Client-side encryption). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file selection methods that do the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to file upload (e.g., unnecessary image editing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during upload). 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/API/validation logic), error handling strategies, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no documentation or comments for key functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clear visual hierarchy for upload controls 2) Proper feedback indicators (loading spinners, progress bars) 3) Consistent styling with proper spacing and alignment. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layout, 5 points for inconsistent visual elements, and 5 points for poor accessibility features (e.g., no keyboard support, missing ARIA attributes). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Upload button feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth progress animations 3) Clear visual states for different upload phases (queued, uploading, complete, error). Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky animations or progress updates, and 5 points if the user can't easily distinguish between different upload states. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/frontend-worker-threads-stream-processing-file-uploads.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 229,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Frontend implementation of Worker Threads + Stream processing for file uploads.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Worker Thread implementation correctly configured and functional?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements Web Workers for file processing, including correct worker script registration, message passing mechanisms, and data transfer protocols. Check if the worker handles file chunking, progress calculation, and error propagation. Score 0 if workers are not implemented, 5 if basic worker setup exists but lacks proper communication, and 10 if full bidirectional communication with proper error handling is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Stream processing mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code uses modern Stream APIs (ReadableStream, WritableStream, TransformStream) for efficient file processing. Check for proper backpressure handling, chunk size optimization, and memory management. Deduct 5 points if using outdated FileReader instead of streams, 3 points if backpressure is not handled, and 2 points if chunk size is not optimized for performance. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the file upload functionality comprehensive and robust?",
+      "description": "Check whether the upload system includes resume capability, file validation (type, size, integrity), progress tracking, and concurrent upload handling. Evaluate if the code supports large file uploads (>100MB) efficiently. Deduct 5 points if resume functionality is missing, 3 points if file validation is incomplete, and 2 points if progress tracking is inaccurate. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the performance optimization strategy effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements proper performance optimizations including worker pool management, memory usage optimization, and upload queue management. Check for efficient resource cleanup and prevention of memory leaks. Deduct 5 points if worker instances are not properly managed, 3 points if memory cleanup is insufficient, and 2 points if concurrent upload limits are not implemented. 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, file corruption, worker crashes, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time file preview during upload 2. Smart compression based on file type 3. Drag-and-drop with visual feedback 4. Upload analytics and optimization 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 implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple progress tracking systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to file upload (e.g., built-in image editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during upload). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core upload functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating upload logic/UI/worker management), proper error handling patterns, and TypeScript usage if applicable. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper module separation is not implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if worker management is not properly abstracted. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload interface follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching with clear visual hierarchy 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear upload status indicators. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor color contrast, and 5 points for unclear progress indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the upload interactions conform to user expectations: 1) File selection feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Progress updates smooth and consistent 3) Clear visual feedback for drag-and-drop operations 4) Responsive cancel/pause controls. Deduct 5 points for each operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for jerky progress animations, and 5 points for confusing upload states. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/html-file-excel-word-viewer-converter.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 365,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible. Help me write an HTML file that can use plugins to read and display specific Excel and Word files from the same directory, and convert other file formats to TXT format for display on the webpage.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload and selection mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code provides a clear interface for users to select Excel, Word, and other files from the local system. Verify that the file input allows appropriate MIME types (.xlsx, .docx, etc.) and provides visual feedback on selection. Award 10 points for a complete implementation with validation and error handling, 5 points for basic functionality without proper validation, and 0 if missing entirely.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is Excel file reading and display functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code uses appropriate libraries (like SheetJS/xlsx, ExcelJS) to parse and display Excel files. Check if the implementation handles different sheet structures and includes features like sheet navigation, cell formatting, and formulas display. Award 10 points for comprehensive Excel handling with formatted display, 5 points for basic table rendering, and 0 if Excel reading is not implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is Word file reading and display functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code effectively uses libraries (like Mammoth, docx.js) to parse and render Word documents with proper formatting. Check if the implementation preserves text formatting, images, tables, and document structure. Award 10 points for comprehensive rendering with styles preserved, 5 points if only plain text is extracted, and 0 if Word reading is not implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the file format conversion to TXT properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of conversion functionality for other file formats to TXT. Check if the code handles different input formats (PDF, RTF, etc.) and properly extracts text content. Verify error handling for unsupported formats and conversion failures. Award 10 points for robust multi-format conversion, 5 points for limited format support, and 0 if conversion is not implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupt files, large files, unsupported formats, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Search functionality within displayed documents 2. Ability to edit and save changes 3. Side-by-side comparison of different files). 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 file parsing functions 2. Function modules unrelated to file display (e.g., unnecessary analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during file 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 file handling logic from UI components), error handling, 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 external libraries are not properly managed with fallbacks. 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) File loading progress indicators 2) Smooth transitions when switching between file types 3) Clear visual cues for interactive elements. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for noticeable delays during file processing without appropriate loading states, and 5 points for confusing navigation between different file views. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/html-file-list-download.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1216,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable. Write HTML code that displays a file list where users can click to download files.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the HTML structure semantically correct and accessible?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code uses proper semantic HTML elements (<ul>, <li> for lists, <a> for download links) and includes accessibility attributes (aria-* attributes, proper alt text for icons). Score 0 if basic HTML structure is missing, 5 if semantic structure exists but lacks accessibility features, 10 if fully semantic and accessible.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the file download functionality correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the download links use the 'download' attribute and 'href' pointing to actual files or implement programmatic download via JavaScript. Check if the code handles different file types appropriately. Score 0 if download functionality is missing, 5 if basic download links exist but lack proper attributes or error handling, 10 if fully implemented with proper attributes and error states.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the file list display relevant file metadata?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the file list shows important metadata (file size, type, modification date, etc.). Score 0 if no metadata is displayed, 5 if only basic filename is shown, 10 if comprehensive metadata is displayed in a well-organized format.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there visual feedback for download actions?",
+      "description": "Check if the interface provides visual indicators for download initiation, progress, and completion (hover effects, loading indicators, success/error notifications). Score 0 if no feedback exists, 5 if basic feedback is implemented but lacks comprehensiveness, 10 if complete visual feedback system is in place.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles edge cases (empty file lists, broken links, large files, unsupported file types) and provides fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should handle these situations gracefully with appropriate error messages. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average handling of errors, 0 points if no error handling exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check for additional useful features beyond basic requirements (e.g., 1. File preview before download 2. Sorting/filtering options 3. Batch download functionality). 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 for redundancies: 1. Unnecessary scripts or libraries for a simple feature 2. Duplicate download mechanisms 3. Excessive styling unrelated to core functionality. 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 code organization (separation of HTML, CSS, JavaScript), naming conventions, and performance considerations. Deduct 5 points for inline styles/scripts when they should be separate; deduct 3 points for poor naming conventions; deduct 2 points for unoptimized resources that could impact performance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate visual design: 1) Consistent spacing and alignment of list items 2) Appropriate use of color to indicate file types or statuses 3) Proper typography with adequate text contrast and hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent spacing, 3 points for poor color choices affecting readability, 4 points for inadequate text contrast. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge interaction quality: 1) Clear hover/active states for download links 2) Immediate visual feedback on click 3) Responsive design that adapts to different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for missing hover states, 3 points for lack of click feedback, 4 points if the design breaks on mobile or smaller viewports. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/html-user-center-mp3-upload-submissions.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 829,
+  "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. Create an HTML interface for a User Center.\n\nThe purpose of this User Center is to provide an interface for users to upload MP3 files, and it should have the following options: File Submission, My Submissions",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file selection, validation for MP3 format, progress indication during upload, and proper error handling. Score 0 if the core upload functionality is not implemented, 5 if only basic file selection exists without validation, and 10 if it includes format validation, progress tracking, and appropriate error messages.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the My Submissions section properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a complete system to display previously uploaded MP3 files with relevant metadata (upload date, file size, duration if extracted). Check if pagination or infinite scrolling is implemented for large lists. Deduct 5 points if there's no way to view file details, and 3 points if sorting/filtering options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there proper user authentication and session management?",
+      "description": "Check whether the User Center includes login/registration functionality, session persistence, and secure authentication practices. Assess if uploaded files are properly associated with the logged-in user account. Deduct 5 points if there's no authentication, 3 points if authentication exists but without proper session management, and 5 points if there's no way to associate uploads with specific users. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the interface include audio playback functionality for uploaded MP3 files?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can preview/play their uploaded MP3 files directly in the interface. Check for essential audio controls (play/pause, volume, seek), and metadata display during playback. Deduct 5 points if basic playback is missing, 3 points if advanced controls are absent, and 2 points if there's no visual feedback during playback. 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 upload failures, oversized files, unsupported formats, network interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Drag-and-drop upload capability 2. Audio waveform visualization 3. Automatic metadata extraction from MP3 files). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload methods with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to MP3 management (e.g., unrelated media players) 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 UI components/file handling logic/authentication), proper error handling patterns, 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 there's no separation of concerns between different functional parts. 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 feedback for upload processes. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between interface states, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}