@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-file_management/simple-webpage-download-synology-nas-files.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 825,
+  "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 display. Help me create a simple webpage that can download files from a web folder in a Synology NAS.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the NAS connection and authentication mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review if the code provides proper authentication methods for Synology NAS (username/password, token-based, or OAuth). Verify error handling for authentication failures and timeout management. Score 0 if no authentication is implemented, 5 if basic authentication is present but lacks security features, and 10 if secure authentication with proper session management is fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the file browsing functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes functions to browse directory structure, display file listings with metadata (size, date, type), and handle pagination for large directories. Verify that it properly handles special characters in filenames and hidden files. Give 10 points if fully implemented with sorting options, 5 points if basic browsing works but lacks features, 0 points if browsing is non-functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the file download mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code correctly implements file download functionality, including handling both small and large files, proper MIME type detection, and download progress indicators. Check for the ability to handle concurrent downloads and resumed downloads. Deduct 5 points if large file downloads aren't handled properly, 3 points if no download progress is shown. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is error handling comprehensive for network and file operations?",
+      "description": "Assess the implementation of error handling for common scenarios like network timeouts, file not found, permission issues, and interrupted downloads. Check whether user-friendly error messages are displayed and recovery options are provided. Score 10 points if all common error cases are handled elegantly, 5 points if basic error handling exists, 0 points if errors crash the application.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as server disconnection, invalid paths, 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. Thumbnail previews for image files 2. Batch download functionality 3. Search capabilities across directories). 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 listing methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to file browsing/downloading (e.g., a built-in media player) 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 UI/API/download logic), error handling consistency, 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 presentation and business logic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for download buttons and actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for long loading times without indicators, and 5 points for confusing navigation or download workflow. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/timeline-based-file-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 555,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Design a timeline-based file management system where all files uploaded by users generate a timeline based on upload times. Users can quickly find specific files by dragging a timeline slider.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload and timeline organization system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload functionality with proper validation, storage handling, and timestamp recording. Check if the timeline organization is implemented with appropriate data structures for efficient retrieval based on timestamps. Score 0 if core upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works but lacks proper timestamp handling, and 10 if the system includes complete file metadata tracking with reliable timestamp-based organization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the timeline slider UI component properly designed and interactive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the slider component that allows users to navigate the timeline. Check for smooth dragging functionality, proper event handling, responsive updates, and visual feedback during interaction. The slider should accurately represent the time distribution of files. Deduct 5 points if the slider doesn't update the file view in real-time, and 3 points if it lacks visual cues about file density across different time periods. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the file visualization and time-based filtering mechanism implemented effectively?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system dynamically updates the file display as users drag the timeline slider. Assess if the filtering mechanism correctly identifies and displays files within the selected time range. Examine whether the system handles time zones properly and provides clear temporal context. Deduct 5 points if filtering has noticeable lag (>200ms), and 3 points if time range selection lacks precision controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a complete file management functionality beyond timeline navigation?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes comprehensive file management features such as previewing, downloading, renaming, deleting, and categorizing files. Check if these operations integrate properly with the timeline system and maintain data consistency. Deduct 5 points if basic file operations are missing, and 3 points if operations don't update the timeline view accordingly. Give 10 points if fully implemented with seamless timeline integration.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as upload failures, invalid file types, large file handling, timeline edge cases, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-based file content categorization 2. Timeline visualization with heat map showing upload frequency 3. Time-based file clustering or pattern recognition). 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 timeline navigation methods that serve the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to timeline-based file management (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down timeline navigation). 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/timeline visualization/UI components), 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 timeline slider and file display updates conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Timeline drag response delay ≤ 100ms 2) File display transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indication of selected time period. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual stuttering during timeline navigation, and 5 points for confusion between timeline position and displayed files. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/user-group-file-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 567,
+  "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. Develop a user group file management system where different users can be assigned to different groups, each group has an independent file storage area, and administrators can adjust user groupings.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and authorization system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements comprehensive user authentication (login/registration) and proper authorization controls. Check if it includes password hashing, session management, and role-based access controls (admin vs regular user). Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic authentication exists but lacks security features, 10 if it implements secure authentication with proper session management and RBAC.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the group management functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code provides complete CRUD operations for user groups. Check if administrators can create groups, add/remove users from groups, and modify group properties. Verify that group membership validation occurs before any file access. Deduct 3 points if group creation lacks validation, 3 points if user assignment to groups has vulnerabilities, and 4 points if group permission inheritance is flawed. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the file management system complete and secure?",
+      "description": "Check if the system implements file upload, download, listing, deletion, and proper access control based on group membership. Verify that file operations respect group boundaries and prevent unauthorized access. Deduct 3 points if file storage lacks proper path sanitization, 3 points if no file type validation exists, 2 points if quota management is missing, and 2 points if there's no file version control or backup mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the admin interface comprehensive and secure?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the administrator dashboard provides all necessary tools for user/group management and system monitoring. Check if admin operations are properly logged and if there are safeguards against accidental or malicious actions. Deduct 3 points if the admin can't view comprehensive user activity, 3 points if bulk operations aren't supported, and 4 points if critical admin actions lack confirmation dialogs or undo capabilities. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid user inputs, file corruption, disk space exhaustion, database connection failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time file collaboration 2. Automated file categorization and tagging 3. Smart search with content indexing 4. File access analytics). 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 user verification methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file or user management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the file browser). 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 access/business logic/presentation 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 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/vue-pdf-signature-approval-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 871,
+  "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. I am a frontend engineer using Vue 3 and Element Plus. As shown in the image, the requirement is to have PDF display on the left side and signature with approval comments on the right side. This involves multiple-page PDF document approval, incorporating signatures and approval comments where the signature is an image and the approval comment is text. After completing the approval, a new PDF needs to be generated. Please think about how to implement this and provide code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the PDF rendering and multi-page display functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements PDF rendering using libraries like pdf.js or vue-pdf, supports multi-page navigation, zoom controls, and proper viewport handling. Check if page thumbnails, page jumping, and smooth scrolling between pages are implemented. Score 0 if PDF cannot be displayed, 5 if only basic single-page display works, and 10 if full multi-page navigation with zoom and responsive layout is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the signature and approval comment integration system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the right panel correctly handles image signature uploads (with format validation for PNG/JPG), text approval comments with rich text editing capabilities, and proper positioning/scaling relative to PDF pages. Check if signature placement, resizing, and comment threading are functional. Deduct 5 points if signature image handling is missing, 3 points if comment positioning is inaccurate. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the coordinate mapping and annotation positioning system accurate?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system accurately maps UI coordinates to PDF coordinate system, handles different zoom levels and page rotations correctly, and maintains annotation positions when switching between pages. Evaluate if coordinate transformation handles viewport changes and maintains precision. Deduct 5 points if annotations drift during zoom, 3 points if positioning fails on page rotation. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the PDF generation and export functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements PDF generation using libraries like jsPDF or PDFLib to merge original PDF with signatures and comments, maintains original document quality, and handles multi-page export correctly. Check if generated PDF preserves all annotations and maintains proper formatting. Deduct 5 points if export quality is degraded, 5 points if annotations are lost during generation. 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 PDF files, oversized signature images, network interruption during file upload, browser memory limitations with large PDFs, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If 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 approval experience (e.g., 1. Batch signature application across multiple pages 2. Approval workflow with multiple reviewers 3. Real-time collaborative editing 4. OCR text recognition for searchable comments 5. Approval history timeline). 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 PDF processing libraries or duplicate rendering logic 2. Unnecessary UI components unrelated to PDF approval (e.g., built-in media players, unrelated widgets) 3. Performance-heavy visual effects that slow down PDF rendering (e.g., excessive animations during page transitions). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core PDF functionality is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review Vue 3 Composition API usage, proper component decomposition (PDF viewer, signature panel, annotation components), TypeScript integration, and Element Plus component optimization. Deduct 5 points if reactive state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if components are not properly separated; deduct 5 points if no build optimization for PDF libraries. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the dual-panel layout follows professional document review interfaces: 1) Proper contrast ratio between PDF background and UI elements 2) Clear visual hierarchy with PDF on left and controls on right 3) Consistent Element Plus theme integration with professional color scheme 4) Appropriate spacing following 8px grid system. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for poor contrast affecting PDF readability, and 5 points for inconsistent Element Plus styling. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether PDF interactions are responsive and professional: 1) Page transitions under 200ms 2) Smooth zoom operations without lag 3) Real-time signature preview during placement 4) Immediate visual feedback for annotation actions 5) Responsive layout adaptation. Deduct 5 points for each sluggish PDF operation, 3 points for delayed annotation feedback, and 5 points for poor mobile/tablet responsiveness. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/vue-word-document-editor-import-export.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 826,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Implement Word document import with online editing in a Vue project, with the ability to save and then export it.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Word document import functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements Word document parsing through Vue.js components, including support for multiple formats (.docx, .doc), proper handling of document structure (paragraphs, tables, images, formatting), and preservation of original document styling. Score 0 if basic import is not working, 5 if only plain text import is supported, and 10 if complete document structure and formatting are preserved during import.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the online editing system comprehensively functional?",
+      "description": "Check whether the Vue-based editor includes essential editing features: rich text formatting (bold, italic, underline, font selection), paragraph alignment, list management, table insertion/editing, image handling, and undo/redo operations. Verify real-time content synchronization and cursor position management. Deduct 5 points if table editing is missing, 3 points if formatting toolbar is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the document save mechanism properly designed with version control?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the save functionality implements auto-save intervals (every 30-60 seconds), manual save triggers, and proper data persistence. Check for version history tracking, conflict resolution for concurrent edits, and data integrity validation. Deduct 5 points if auto-save is missing, 3 points if no version tracking exists. Verify that save operations handle network failures gracefully. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the document export functionality complete and accurate?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes comprehensive export capabilities that maintain document fidelity when converting back to Word format. Verify support for multiple export formats (.docx, .pdf), preservation of formatting, images, tables, and document metadata. Evaluate export speed and file size optimization. Deduct 5 points if formatting is lost during export, 3 points if images are not properly embedded. Give 10 points if export maintains 100% visual fidelity.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted document files, network interruption during save/export, large file uploads, browser memory limitations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time collaborative editing with multiple cursors 2. Smart content suggestions and auto-complete 3. Document commenting and review system 4. Advanced search and replace with regex support 5. Template library integration). 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 save mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to document editing (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during typing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core document editing functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review Vue.js best practices implementation (proper component composition, Vuex/Pinia state management, router configuration), modular design separating document processing/editor/storage layers, TypeScript usage, unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if Vue reactivity is misused or component lifecycle is not properly managed; 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 document editor interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clean toolbar design with intuitive icons 2) Proper document canvas layout with realistic paper appearance 3) Harmonious color scheme suitable for long reading sessions 4) Professional typography with appropriate font rendering 5) Responsive design for different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered interface element, 5 points for poor contrast ratios affecting readability, and 5 points for non-intuitive navigation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the editing experience conforms to user expectations: 1) Typing response delay ≤ 50ms with no input lag 2) Smooth scrolling performance even with large documents 3) Instant formatting application without flicker 4) Responsive toolbar interactions 5) Smooth import/export progress indicators. Deduct 5 points for each noticeable performance bottleneck, 3 points for choppy animations during editing, and 5 points for unresponsive UI elements during document processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/vue3-large-file-upload-breakpoint-continuation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 408,
+  "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. Implement large file slice upload and breakpoint continuation in Vue 3.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file slicing mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code correctly implements file slicing using the Blob API, with appropriate chunk size determination (ideally configurable, typically 2-5MB per chunk). Check for proper handling of file metadata (MIME type, original filename, total size) and generation of a unique file identifier for tracking upload progress. Score 0 if slicing is not implemented, 5 if basic slicing exists but with fixed chunk size, 10 if it has adaptive/configurable chunk sizing with proper metadata handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the breakpoint continuation logic correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of breakpoint resumption, including persistent storage of upload state (using IndexedDB, localStorage, or server-side tracking), chunk verification mechanisms (MD5/SHA hash for each chunk), and proper handling of previously uploaded chunks. Deduct 5 points if uploaded chunks can't be verified after page reload, 3 points if the resumption mechanism relies solely on server-side state. Full score requires both client and server-side state tracking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the upload progress tracking and visualization implemented effectively?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements accurate progress tracking for both individual chunks and overall file upload. Progress visualization should include percentage completion, upload speed, estimated time remaining, and visual feedback for each chunk status (pending, uploading, completed, failed). Deduct 3 points for missing speed calculation, 2 points for no time estimation, and 5 points for lack of per-chunk status visualization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include proper error handling and retry mechanisms?",
+      "description": "Assess error handling for network issues, server errors, and file access problems. Look for automatic retry logic with exponential backoff, configurable retry limits, and proper user feedback during failures. Check for graceful degradation when features aren't supported. Deduct 5 points for missing retry logic, 3 points for constant retry intervals, and 2 points for inadequate error messages to users.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser tab closure during upload, network fluctuations, file type restrictions, size limits, 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 support 2. Image/video previews during upload 3. Background uploading with service workers 4. Parallel uploading with configurable concurrency). 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 reading methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file uploads (e.g., unnecessary data processing) 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 upload logic/UI components/API services), use of Vue 3's Composition API, proper TypeScript typing, and unit test coverage. Deduct 5 points if global state is overused when Composables would be more appropriate; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there are no meaningful comments or documentation. 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 upload interface provides clear visual feedback: 1) Upload button state changes ≤ 100ms after selection 2) Progress updates at least every 500ms 3) Clear visual distinction between upload states (queued, uploading, paused, completed, failed). Deduct 5 points for laggy UI updates during large file uploads, 3 points for confusing state transitions, and 5 points for missing abort/pause/resume controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/web-search-word-pdf-files.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 955,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional replies. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Help me write a web-based software that implements search functionality for Word and PDF files.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file upload and parsing functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload handling for both Word (.docx, .doc) and PDF formats through HTML file input and JavaScript. Check if proper file type validation, size limits, and content extraction are implemented. Score 0 if core file parsing is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload without parsing is present, and 10 if complete text extraction from both formats with error handling is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the search algorithm and indexing system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the search functionality includes efficient text indexing, keyword matching algorithms (exact match, fuzzy search, boolean operators), and result ranking mechanisms. Check for search performance optimization and real-time search suggestions. Deduct 5 points if no indexing strategy is used, 3 points if search is case-sensitive only, and 3 points if no search result highlighting is implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the search result display and navigation system well-designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code provides comprehensive search result presentation including file previews, context snippets with highlighted keywords, pagination or infinite scroll, and sorting options (by relevance, date, file type). Evaluate if result navigation allows users to jump to specific locations within documents. Deduct 5 points if no result preview is available, 3 points if no keyword highlighting in results. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the file management and storage system properly constructed?",
+      "description": "Review whether the system includes proper file storage management (local storage, session storage, or server-side), file organization features (folders, tags, categories), and document metadata handling (creation date, file size, last modified). Check for file deletion, bulk operations, and search history functionality. Deduct 5 points if no persistent storage is implemented, 3 points if no file organization features exist. Give 10 points if fully implemented with backup mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted files, unsupported formats, large file processing, memory limitations, and network interruptions) 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 search experience (e.g., 1. OCR capability for scanned PDFs 2. Advanced search filters by date/size/content type 3. Search result export functionality 4. Full-text search with regex support 5. Search analytics and statistics). 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 format) 2. Function modules unrelated to search functionality (e.g., built-in document editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect search performance (e.g., excessive animations during search). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core search 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 parsing/search engine/UI layers), error handling patterns, and code organization structure. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no proper separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper async/await patterns for file operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the search interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clean search bar design with proper spacing 2) Intuitive file type icons and visual hierarchy 3) Professional color scheme with sufficient contrast 4) Responsive layout for different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for poor search result readability, and 5 points for inconsistent styling across components. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the search interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the search functionality provides optimal user experience: 1) Search input response time ≤ 200ms for auto-suggestions 2) File upload progress indicators and feedback 3) Loading states during search operations 4) Smooth transitions between search states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without proper feedback, 3 points for laggy search input, and 5 points for unclear loading states during file processing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/webpage-software-categorization-image-display.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1723,
+  "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 for demonstration purposes. I indeed use a webpage to implement consistent software categorization and image display. Various downloaded software is stored in the D:\\Download folder. Please write code to implement this, ensuring the webpage is aesthetically pleasing and elegant.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "File system scanning and categorization implementation",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements a file system scanner that can traverse the D:\\Download directory, identify file types accurately, and categorize them based on extensions or content signatures. Check if it handles various edge cases like permissions, locked files, and large directories.0 points if no file scanning functionality exists, 5 points for basic extension-based categorization, 10 points for comprehensive detection including content signature analysis and proper error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "User interface design and visual categorization system",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI implements a clear visual categorization system with consistent visual language for different software types. Check if the interface follows a grid layout, employs appropriate thumbnails/icons, and provides visual cues for software categories.Deduct 5 points for inconsistent visual language across categories, 3 points for poor information hierarchy, and 5 points for lack of visual differentiation between categories. 10 points for a comprehensive, well-designed categorization system.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Image rendering and thumbnail generation",
+      "description": "Assess if the code properly generates and caches thumbnails for software installers, optimizes image loading, and implements lazy loading for better performance. Check if appropriate default icons are used when thumbnails cannot be extracted.Deduct 5 points if no thumbnail generation exists, 3 points if thumbnails are not cached for performance, 2 points if image quality is poor. 10 points for optimal thumbnail extraction with fallback mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Search and filter functionality",
+      "description": "Check if the implementation includes robust search capabilities with real-time filtering, multiple filter criteria (size, date, type, name), and maintains usability during search operations.0 points if search functionality is missing, 5 points for basic text search only, 10 points for comprehensive search with multiple filters, highlighting, and keyboard shortcuts.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as missing files, access denied errors, corrupted images, network interruptions when fetching metadata) 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. Auto-categorization using AI 2. Detect duplicates across categories 3. Visual history timeline of downloads 4. Integration with software update checks).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 file scanning algorithms 2. Unnecessary data processing unrelated to the core functionality 3. Fancy effects that affect load time and performance (e.g., excessive animations).Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating file system access/UI rendering/data processing), error handling coverage, and appropriate use of web technologies.Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no build process or module system is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (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 for software selection and category navigation.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast category switching, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}