@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-file_management/implement-drag-and-drop-file-upload-vue-3.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 459,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Implement drag and drop file upload in Vue 3.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the drag and drop file upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core drag and drop API (using HTML5 dragenter, dragover, dragleave, drop events). Check if it prevents default browser behavior for drag events and handles file objects correctly from the DataTransfer object. Score 0 if drag events are not implemented, 5 if only basic file dropping works without visual feedback, and 10 if it handles all drag states properly with appropriate event propagation control.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Vue 3 Composition API utilized effectively?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation leverages Vue 3's Composition API (ref, reactive, computed, watch, lifecycle hooks) properly rather than just using Options API. Check for proper reactivity handling for the file state and upload progress. Deduct 5 points if Vue 3 specific features are not utilized, 3 points if reactive state management is inconsistent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the file upload implementation include proper validation and feedback?",
+      "description": "Check if the code validates file types, file sizes, and provides clear feedback on validation failures. Assess whether progress indicators are implemented for upload operations. Deduct 5 points if there's no file validation, 3 points if validation exists but without user feedback, and 2 points if progress tracking is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper error handling and resilience in the upload process?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation handles network errors, server rejections, and file processing issues gracefully. Check for retry mechanisms, informative error messages, and state recovery. Deduct 5 points if error handling is absent, 3 points if errors are caught but not communicated to users effectively. 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 unsupported file types, extremely large files, network interruption, browser compatibility issues). 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. Image preview for image files 2. Directory/folder upload support 3. Chunked file uploading for large 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 upload handlers) 2. Function modules unrelated to file upload (e.g., complex animation systems) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary DOM manipulations 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 upload logic/UI components/API services), reusability of components, and proper TypeScript usage if applicable. 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 poor separation of concerns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload area design follows modern UI principles: 1) Clear visual cues for the drop zone 2) Proper state visualization (idle, dragging over, uploading, success, error) 3) Appropriate animation and transitions. Deduct 3 points for each missing visual state, 5 points for poor contrast or readability issues, and 5 points for confusing user interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the drag and drop interactions feel natural: 1) Immediate visual feedback when files are dragged over the drop zone 2) Clear indication when files are being processed 3) Smooth transitions between upload states. Deduct 5 points for delayed feedback during dragging, 3 points for jarring state transitions, and 5 points for confusing or missing upload status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/market-research-report-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 543,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Design a market research report management system where market researchers can upload research report files (PDF, PPT formats) and add research location and time to the reports. Market department managers (username: marketmgr, password: marketpass) can log into the system, view all research reports, filter by location or time, and share reports with other departments.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload and report metadata management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes a complete file upload mechanism that supports PDF and PPT formats, along with metadata collection for research location and time. Score 0 if file upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but without proper validation or metadata handling, and 10 if the implementation includes file type validation, size limits, progress indicators, and proper metadata association.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the authentication and authorization system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the system implements secure authentication for the market manager (username: marketmgr, password: marketpass) with appropriate session management and CSRF protection. Evaluate if role-based access control is implemented to differentiate between researchers and managers. Deduct 5 points if passwords are stored in plaintext, 3 points if session management is insecure, and 3 points if there's no protection against brute force attacks. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the report filtering and search capabilities implemented effectively?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the filtering system by location and time, looking for features like multi-criteria search, date range selection, and geographic hierarchies. Score 0 if filtering is absent, 5 if only basic filtering is available without advanced options, and 10 if the implementation includes real-time filtering with efficient database queries, advanced filter combinations, and search history functionality.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the report sharing mechanism secure and functional?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the sharing functionality allows managers to share reports with other departments selectively, with options for setting permissions or expiration dates. Check if the system generates secure sharing links or implements department-level permissions. Deduct 5 points if sharing lacks access controls, 3 points if no audit trail exists for shared reports, and 3 points if there's no way to revoke access. 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 uploads, invalid file formats, network interruptions, database connection 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. Automatic report summarization 2. Visual analytics dashboard for research trends 3. Integration with notification systems for new reports). 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 mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to market research management (e.g., a built-in social media feed) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the dashboard). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/service/controller 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 sliding, 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/mini-program-photo-upload-cloud.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 743,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please develop a mini-program that allows users to select photos from an album and upload them to a cloud platform. Provide all files, including cloud functions, along with detailed code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the local photo selection function fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements photo selection from the album, including handling permissions, supporting multiple photo selection, and providing image previews. Check if there are file type and size validations, and if users can deselect/reselect photos. Score 0 if selection functionality is missing, 5 if basic selection works but lacks validations, and 10 if all features including preview and validation are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the cloud upload functionality correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of cloud upload mechanisms, including proper authentication, progress indicators, retry mechanisms for failed uploads, and handling of various network conditions. Check if there's proper error handling for server-side rejections. Deduct 5 points if upload progress isn't shown, 3 points if there's no retry mechanism, and 2 points if network transitions aren't handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the cloud functions properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if cloud functions include proper authentication mechanisms, validation of uploaded content, secure storage implementation, and appropriate response handling. Verify if there are security measures against unauthorized access and proper logging. Deduct 5 points for missing authentication, 3 points for insufficient validation, and 2 points for poor error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there appropriate file/image processing implementation?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes image optimization before upload (compression, resizing), support for various image formats, and appropriate metadata handling. Check if there are options for quality selection and if EXIF data is properly preserved or stripped as needed. Deduct 5 points for no image optimization, 3 points for limited format support, and 2 points for poor metadata handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as permission denials, corrupt files, network interruption, server errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered image categorization 2. Automatic album creation based on content 3. Social sharing integration 4. Background upload capability). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple upload mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to photo uploading (e.g., a built-in game) 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/upload logic/cloud service 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) Upload button feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback during upload process. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jumpy animations during selection/upload, and 5 points for confusing upload status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/mobile-photo-cloud-upload-download.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1257,
+  "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. Photo upload and download: Users can upload photos from their mobile album to the cloud, supporting batch upload, download, and original image saving. Generate the complete process for this functionality.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the photo upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete photo upload system, including file selection interface, MIME type validation, and progress tracking. Score 0 if the core upload logic is missing, 5 if basic upload is implemented without validation, and 10 if it includes file type checking, size limits (typically 10-20MB per image), and proper error handling for failed uploads.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is batch uploading properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the batch upload implementation, checking for concurrent upload management, individual file status tracking, and aggregate progress reporting. Deduct 3 points if there's no cancel option for in-progress uploads, 4 points if there's no parallel upload optimization, and 5 points if the code doesn't handle partial batch failures gracefully. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the cloud storage and download mechanism properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check if secure download links are generated, proper authentication is implemented for protected resources, and whether original image quality is preserved. Deduct 5 points if no content delivery optimization is included (like CDN integration), 3 points if download resumption isn't supported, and 5 points if there's no mechanism to handle expired download links. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is mobile device integration properly handled?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code properly integrates with mobile device APIs for accessing photo albums, requesting appropriate permissions, and handling device-specific behaviors (iOS vs Android differences). Deduct 5 points if camera capture isn't supported alongside gallery selection, 5 points if permissions aren't properly requested and verified, and 3 points if device orientation and EXIF data aren't preserved. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unstable network conditions, insufficient storage space, invalid file formats, 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 of photos 2. Automatic creation of photo albums based on time/location 3. Background upload that works even when the app is minimized). 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 picker implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to photo management (e.g., a built-in social network) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during upload/download). 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/upload logic/storage layers), unit test coverage, and error logging capabilities. 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 proper logging mechanism for debugging upload/download failures. 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 for upload previews and progress indicators 3) Clear visual feedback during the upload/download process. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for confusing status indicators, and 5 points for inconsistent thumbnail presentation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Immediate feedback when photos are selected 2) Smooth progress indicators for upload/download operations 3) Intuitive gestures for photo selection and management. Deduct 5 points for laggy thumbnail generation, 3 points for jerky progress indicators, and 5 points for confusing multi-select interactions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/online-file-preview-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 596,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Design a file preview system where users can directly preview common file formats (such as images, PDFs, text files, etc.) online after clicking on a file.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file type detection and handling system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly identifies different file types (MIME types) and applies appropriate preview handlers. Check if it supports at least images (JPG, PNG, GIF, SVG), documents (PDF, TXT, MD), and potentially videos/audio. Score 3 points for basic image preview, 7 points for including document formats, and 10 points for comprehensive MIME type detection with specialized handlers for each format.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the file upload/selection mechanism user-friendly and robust?",
+      "description": "Review the code for both drag-and-drop functionality and traditional file input methods. Check for proper file size validation, progress indicators during upload, and input sanitization. Deduct 3 points if only basic file input is implemented without drag-and-drop, 2 points for missing file size checks, and 2 points for lack of upload progress indication. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the preview rendering engine properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code uses appropriate rendering techniques for different file types (canvas for images, PDF.js for PDFs, syntax highlighting for code files, etc.). Deduct 5 points if only native browser capabilities are used without specialized rendering, and 3 points if the rendering doesn't handle edge cases like large files or malformed content. Award 10 points for a comprehensive rendering system with format-specific optimizations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is a caching mechanism implemented for improved performance?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements file caching strategies to avoid redundant processing of previously viewed files. Look for client-side storage utilization (IndexedDB, localStorage) and proper cache invalidation mechanisms. Award 5 points for basic browser caching, 8 points for implementing custom client-side cache, and 10 points for an intelligent caching system that considers file size and frequency of access.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupt files, unsupported formats, loading failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or fallback 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 content searching within previews 2. Annotation capabilities on documents/images 3. Side-by-side comparison of multiple 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 preview functions 2. Function modules unrelated to file previewing 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations when switching between files). 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/rendering logic), error handling practices, 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 error handling is insufficient or inconsistent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing for the preview area and controls 3) Professional font system for metadata and UI elements. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor preview container responsiveness. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the file preview interaction conforms to user expectations: 1) Preview loads within 500ms for standard files 2) Smooth transitions between different file previews 3) Intuitive zoom, scroll, and navigation controls for documents and images. Deduct 5 points for previews that take >2 seconds to load without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between file types, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/online-file-storage-sharing-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 578,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable when possible. Please write an online file storage and sharing management system where users can upload, download, and delete their own files, and can share files with others through generated sharing links. If a file is shared, the system will record the number of shares. Administrators can log in to the backend to view information about all files and can delete files that do not comply with regulations.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload and download functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements file uploads with chunk handling, progress tracking, and resumable uploads. Check if download functionality includes proper headers for content disposition, content type detection, and download progress indicators. Score 0 if core upload/download functionality is missing, 5 if basic implementation without optimizations, 10 if fully implemented with all optimizations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the file sharing mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system generates secure, unique sharing links with optional expiration dates and access controls (view-only vs. download). Check if the sharing counter works correctly and is updated atomically. Deduct 5 points if link security is weak (predictable IDs), 3 points if sharing counter isn't atomic, and 3 points if access controls are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and permission system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the system implements proper authentication (with secure password storage), authorization for file operations (users can only manage their own files), and admin privileges (can view all files and delete inappropriate content). Verify session management and CSRF protection. Deduct 5 points for weak authentication, 5 points for permission issues, 3 points for missing session timeouts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the administration panel functional and comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the admin interface provides file listing with filtering/sorting options, user activity monitoring, content moderation tools, and system statistics. Check if admins can effectively identify and remove inappropriate content. Deduct 3 points if file filtering is missing, 3 points if activity logs are inadequate, 5 points if moderation tools are insufficient. 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 large file uploads, upload interruptions, duplicate filenames, storage quota overflows, invalid file types, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Automatic file categorization/tagging 2. File previews for common formats 3. Version history tracking 4. File encryption options). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload methods with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to file storage/sharing (e.g., built-in chat systems) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during file transfers). 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 storage/authentication/sharing logic), 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 4) Intuitive drag-and-drop file operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during file browsing, 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/pdf-literature-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1019,
+  "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. I want to create a small program:\n\n1. General functionality: Read PDF literature, identify, and summarize\n2. Specific implementation: PDF literature can be categorized through research direction keywords, arranged chronologically, by directional differentiation, research institutions, journals, and other categories in a tree structure (this functionality is key)\n3. When there are many documents, use keywords for selection. The homepage displays keywords, with different sizes representing the quantity of related literature, and different colors and words representing different categories of articles. Clicking on a keyword displays a small tree that can be zoomed in and out to view the scope of literature, somewhat like Apple's classification bar - just a few icons before clicking, but displaying all icons after clicking\n4. Please provide HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code for mobile devices",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "PDF Reading and Text Extraction Functionality",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a working PDF parsing mechanism that can extract text content from uploaded PDF files.0 points if PDF reading is not implemented, 5 points if basic text extraction works but with structure/formatting issues, 10 points if text extraction is robust and preserves document structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Literature Summarization and Keyword Extraction",
+      "description": "Evaluate the text analysis capability to identify key information and generate meaningful summaries from academic PDFs.0 points if summarization is absent, 3 points if only basic metadata extraction exists, 7 points if keyword extraction works but summarization is weak, 10 points if both keyword extraction and summarization are robust.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Hierarchical Tree Structure Implementation",
+      "description": "Assess the tree structure implementation for organizing literature by various categories as specified.0 points if tree structure is missing, 5 points if basic tree exists but lacks proper categorization options, 8 points if tree has multiple classification schemes but lacks smooth interaction, 10 points if fully functional with all required categorization options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Keyword Cloud Visualization",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the keyword cloud on the homepage that represents literature quantity through variable sizing.0 points if keyword cloud is absent, 5 points if basic cloud exists but lacks proper sizing/coloring, 8 points if sizing and coloring work but transitions are clunky, 10 points if the visualization is complete with smooth interactions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Code Robustness",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms.0 points if no exception handling exists, 5 points if basic error handling is implemented but recovery mechanisms are missing, 10 points if comprehensive error handling with user-friendly recovery options is present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Innovative Features",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience beyond the core requirements.Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Redundant Features",
+      "description": "Strictly check for unnecessary implementations that complicate the code or user experience.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": "Code Engineering Quality",
+      "description": "Review the overall code architecture, organization, and best practices implementation.Deduct 5 points if global state management is messy; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is high; deduct 5 points if mobile-specific optimizations are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Mobile UI Design Quality",
+      "description": "Assess whether the interface follows professional mobile design principles and is optimized for smaller screens.Deduct 3 points for each non-touch-friendly element, 5 points for non-responsive layouts, and 5 points for text that's too small to read on mobile. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Interaction and Performance",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects and performance are optimized for mobile devices.Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag during interactions, 3 points for rendering issues during transitions, and 5 points for memory issues with multiple documents. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/prescription-details-reference-table.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1479,
+  "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 when possible.\n\nPrescription | Introduction | Formula | Preparation Method | Functions and Indications | Usage and Dosage | Reference\n--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---\nAi'ai Pill | [Formula] White ginger (stir-fried with salt, wine or rice vinegar) 8 qian, Cyperus rotundus (soaked in urine, fried) 1 liang, Corydalis yanhusuo (fried) 8 qian, genuine Donkey-hide gelatin (fried into pearls) 1... | White ginger (stir-fried with salt, wine or rice vinegar) 8 qian, Cyperus rotundus (soaked in urine, fried) 1 liang, Corydalis yanhusuo (fried) 8 qian, genuine Donkey-hide gelatin (fried into pearls) 1... | Grind into powder, mix with wine paste to form pills the size of Chinese parasol tree seeds. | Metrorrhagia, especially effective for elderly women. | 30 pills per dose, taken on empty stomach with salted wine or salt water. | \"Yi Tong\" Volume 84\nAsafoetida and Galangal Pill | [Formula] Green tangerine peel 3 liang, Aged tangerine peel 2 liang, Galangal 2 liang, Red beans 2 liang, Cinnamon (coarse skin removed) 1 liang, Amomum (peel removed) 2 liang, Eupatorium (roasted) 2... | Green tangerine peel 3 liang, Aged tangerine peel 2 liang, Galangal 2 liang, Red beans 2 liang, Cinnamon (coarse skin removed) 1 liang, Amomum (peel removed) 2 liang, Eupatorium (roasted) 2... | Grind into fine powder and mix evenly, form pills with flour paste the size of mung beans. | Long-term use greatly nourishes spleen and stomach, clears stomach emptiness, improves appetite, eliminates cold dampness, strengthens and warms the body. Treats weakness in the three abdominal regions, accumulated cold in middle energizer, weak spleen digestion, slow digestion of food and drinks... | 50 pills per dose, taken with mild ginger soup, anytime, twice daily. | \"Hong's Collected Verified Prescriptions\" quoted from Shangguan Zhubo's prescription\nAsafoetida Pill | Index \"Asafoetida Pill\" in \"Revised Yan's Life-saving Formulas\", \"Asafoetida Pill\" in \"Danxi's Methods of Mental Cultivation\" Volume 3, \"Asafoetida Pill\" in \"Danxi's Methods of Mental Cultivation\" Volume 3... | Costus root (uncooked) and Areca nut 15g each, Pepper and Asafoetida (dissolved in vinegar, added gradually) 7.5g each | Grind into fine powder, mix with Asafoetida paste and glutinous rice to form pills the size of Chinese parasol tree seeds. | Qi accumulation, meat accumulation, abdominal distention with lumps and pain. May cause pain in the sides and ribs, or pain extending to the back, and loss of appetite. | 40 pills per dose, anytime, taken with fresh ginger and tangerine peel soup. | \"Revised Yan's Life-saving Formulas\"\nI want to create a table similar to this",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the table structure properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the HTML code correctly implements a responsive data table with appropriate structure (thead, tbody), proper column alignment, and mobile compatibility. Check if the table headers are properly defined and if the data rows maintain consistent formatting. Score 0 if the table is not implemented at all, 5 if basic structure exists but has significant layout issues, and 10 if the table is fully structured with proper semantic markup.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the data organization and display complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether all seven columns (Prescription, Introduction, Formula, Preparation Method, Functions and Indications, Usage and Dosage, Reference) are properly implemented and populated with sample data. Each column should display the content with appropriate formatting and text wrapping. Deduct 2 points for each missing column or severely malformatted column. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are sorting and filtering capabilities implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the implementation includes functionality for users to sort the table by different columns (e.g., alphabetically by prescription name) and filter content (e.g., search for specific herbs or indications). Deduct 5 points if sorting is missing, 5 points if filtering/search is absent, and 3 points if these features are implemented but perform poorly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there pagination or efficient handling of large datasets?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes mechanisms for handling potentially large datasets, such as pagination, virtualization, or lazy loading. The implementation should maintain performance even with hundreds of prescription entries. Deduct 5 points if no pagination/virtualization exists, 3 points if it exists but has performance issues with large datasets, and 2 points if the pagination controls are 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 missing data fields, extremely long text content, special characters in prescription names, etc.) and provide appropriate fallbacks or error handling. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Expandable rows for detailed information 2. Interactive herb glossary with tooltips 3. Unit conversion for traditional measurements). 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 sorting mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the prescription table (e.g., unrelated widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/view/controller layers), code reusability, and appropriate use of libraries or frameworks. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no consideration is given to performance optimization for large data sets. 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 table design principles: 1) Appropriate use of borders, dividers and whitespace 2) Consistent typography with readable font sizes (≥ 14px for body text) 3) Visual hierarchy that distinguishes headers from data. Deduct 3 points for cluttered cell formatting, 5 points for poor contrast making text difficult to read, and 5 points for inconsistent column widths or poorly aligned content. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Responsive sorting/filtering with visual feedback ≤ 200ms 2) Smooth transitions when showing/hiding content 3) Hover states and clear actionable elements. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy interactions when handling large data sets, and 5 points for unintuitive interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}