@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/engineering-management-system-permission-dotnet-mysql-vue3.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1067,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable. Can you create an engineering management system that includes permission management? Use .NET with MySQL, and Vue 3 for the frontend.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the permission management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) with multiple permission levels, dynamic role assignment, and hierarchical permission inheritance. Check if it includes user-role mapping, permission validation middleware, and audit logging. Score 0 if core permission logic is missing, 5 if only basic role assignment exists, and 10 if all enterprise-grade permission features are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the .NET backend architecture properly structured?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the backend architecture including proper separation of concerns (Controllers, Services, Repositories), dependency injection patterns, and API design. Check if Entity Framework Core is correctly configured with MySQL, including migrations and data seeding. Deduct 5 points for monolithic controller design, 3 points for missing repository abstractions, and 5 points for hardcoded database queries. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the Vue 3 frontend implementation complete and modern?",
+      "description": "Assess the Vue 3 implementation for Composition API usage, proper state management (Pinia/Vuex), and component architecture. Check for proper routing with navigation guards that integrate with the permission system. Deduct 5 points if Options API is used exclusively, 3 points if global state is poorly managed, and 3 points if components are not reusable. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there secure authentication and API communication?",
+      "description": "Review the authentication mechanism (JWT/OAuth), secure API endpoints with proper authorization headers, CSRF protection, and secure cookie handling. Check if tokens include expiration and refresh mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if plaintext passwords are used anywhere, 5 points if API endpoints lack authorization checks, and 3 points if HTTPS is not enforced. 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 input, database connection failures, authentication errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper exception handling in both frontend and backend. 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 dashboard with notifications 2. Audit trail visualization 3. Dynamic permission templates 4. Two-factor authentication). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple authentication methods coexisting without clear purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to engineering management (e.g., social media features) 3. Overengineered components that reduce maintainability. 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, unit testing coverage, API documentation (Swagger/OpenAPI), and CI/CD pipeline configuration. Check for proper logging implementation and environment configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there are no automated tests. 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) Consistent color scheme matching corporate identity 2) Proper layout spacing and responsive design 3) Professional typography system with proper hierarchy. Check if UI components follow design system guidelines. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent UI elements, 5 points for non-responsive layouts, and 5 points for poor information architecture. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Form validation with immediate feedback 2) Loading states and skeleton screens for async operations 3) Clear visual focus and navigation patterns. Deduct 5 points for missing loading indicators, 3 points for abrupt state transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. Check if permissions changes reflect immediately in the UI. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/enterprise-career-platform-with-two-way-matching.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1296,
+  "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. Don't use any formal syntax - just present it in the most intuitive way:\n\n[Visitor access][Register/Login]\n[User Management]\n[Create Enterprise]\n    [Enterprise Verification]\n[Post Updates]\n   [Information Display]\n    [Publish Job Listings]\n   [Resume Submission]\n    [Intelligent Recommendations]\n   [Career Analysis]\n    [Two-way Matching] includes only these features",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the visitor access and authentication system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements a robust visitor access system with proper authentication flow (register/login). Verify if it includes secure password handling with hashing, form validation with appropriate error messages, and session management with JWT or similar tokens. Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic implementation exists, and 10 if complete with security best practices (CSRF protection, rate limiting, etc.).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the user management system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the user management functionality for both job seekers and enterprise users. Check if it includes profile creation, role-based permissions, account settings management, and data privacy controls. Verify if users can update their information, manage notification preferences, and control data sharing. Deduct 5 points if key management features are missing, 3 points if permission controls are inadequate.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the enterprise creation and verification process well-designed?",
+      "description": "Review the enterprise creation workflow and verification system. Check if it includes company profile creation, document upload for verification, admin approval interface, and status tracking. Verify if the system handles edge cases such as verification rejection, resubmission process, and expiration handling. Score 0 if verification logic is absent, 5 if basic implementation exists, and 10 if comprehensive with fraud prevention measures.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the core job marketplace features well-implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess the implementation of key job marketplace features: posting updates, information display, job listings, resume submission, intelligent recommendations, career analysis, and two-way matching. Check if the code properly integrates these components into a cohesive system with appropriate data flow. Deduct 3 points for each missing core feature, and 5 points if the features exist but don't interact properly with each other.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, server errors, concurrent user actions, 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 job matching algorithm 2. Interactive career path visualization 3. Automated resume quality scoring). 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 profile systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to job marketplace (e.g., a built-in game system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations on critical pages). 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 business logic/UI/API 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-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/enterprise-recruitment-website-vue3-js-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1231,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. I want to implement the enterprise side functionality of a recruitment website using Vue3+JS.\n\nThe functions include: account/password login, WeChat QR code login; enterprise registration, viewing and editing enterprise information; job posting, job details, job editing, viewing applicant lists for positions, processing applications (marking as unsuitable, passing initial screening, etc.), viewing applicant details, online resume preview, message notifications, personal settings, etc.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Authentication System Implementation",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of multiple authentication methods including account/password and WeChat QR code login.Check if the code includes secure password validation (hashing, salting), JWT token management, and WeChat OAuth integration. Verify that session timeout handling and refresh token mechanisms are implemented. Deduct 5 points if secure storage practices are missing; deduct 3 points if no remember-me functionality exists; deduct 5 points if CSRF protection is absent.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Enterprise Registration and Profile Management",
+      "description": "Assess the completeness of enterprise registration and profile management functionality.Verify if the code includes form validation for business registration (checking business license format, duplicate prevention), profile editing capabilities with proper state management, and data validation. Check if file uploading for business credentials is implemented securely. Deduct 5 points if validation is incomplete; deduct 3 points if changes aren't confirmed before submission; deduct 5 points if there's no separation between viewing and editing modes.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Job Management System",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of job posting, editing, and management functionalities.Assess whether the code implements comprehensive job CRUD operations, including draft saving, validation rules for job descriptions, salary ranges, and required fields. Check if there are preview capabilities before publishing. Deduct 5 points for missing job status tracking (active/inactive/expired); deduct 3 points if job templates or duplication features are absent; deduct 5 points if job search/filter capabilities are missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Applicant Processing Workflow",
+      "description": "Evaluate the applicant tracking system and processing workflow.Check if the code implements a complete applicant lifecycle (new, screened, interviewed, rejected, hired) with appropriate state transitions and permissions. Verify that batch operations for applications are supported and that interview scheduling integrations are available. Deduct 5 points if filtering/sorting of applicants is missing; deduct 3 points if there's no communication history tracking; deduct 5 points if application stage tracking visualizations are absent.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Code Robustness",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations and provide friendly error handling.Assess error boundary implementations, loading states for asynchronous operations, and form validation feedback. Code with strong robustness should handle network failures, input validation, and state recovery. Deduct 5 points for missing global error handlers; deduct 3 points for inadequate loading indicators; deduct 5 points for absent retry mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Innovative Features",
+      "description": "Check for eye-catching features that enhance the recruitment experience.Look for features like AI-assisted candidate matching, automated screening tools, integrated video interviews, calendar integrations, or analytics dashboards. Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Feature Redundancy",
+      "description": "Identify unnecessary or redundant implementations.Check for 1. Duplicate implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple notification systems) 2. Features unrelated to recruitment (e.g., social networking tools) 3. Over-engineered components that impact performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found; deduct 10 points directly if core recruitment functions are compromised by bloated code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Engineering Quality",
+      "description": "Review the architecture and code organization of the Vue3 application.Evaluate component structure (atomic design principles), state management implementation (Vuex/Pinia), API service layer isolation, and Vue composition API usage. Deduct 5 points for global state mismanagement; deduct 3 points for excessive component coupling; deduct 5 points for inadequate code splitting or lazy loading; deduct 3 points for missing TypeScript interfaces (if TypeScript is used).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Interface Design Standards",
+      "description": "Assess if the UI adheres to professional design standards.Evaluate component consistency, responsive design implementation, accessibility compliance (WCAG), and design system adherence. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent form elements; deduct 5 points for non-responsive layouts; deduct 3 points for poor color contrast ratios; deduct 5 points for inaccessible interactive elements.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Interaction Smoothness",
+      "description": "Judge the quality of dynamic interactions and user experience.Verify Vue transitions for page/component changes, loading skeletons, form feedback timing, and navigation patterns. Deduct 5 points for jarring page transitions; deduct 3 points for missing loading states; deduct 5 points for unresponsive UI during data operations; deduct 3 points for confusing information architecture.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/enterprise-wireless-network-device-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 488,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Implement an enterprise wireless network device management system for managing the company's WiFi access points, wireless controllers, and other devices. The system requires administrator login (username: admin, password: 123456), the ability to add wireless devices (device name, model, MAC address, IP address, location), monitor device status and connected user count, and configure wireless network parameters. The system needs to display device distribution on a floor plan along with signal coverage heat maps, showing signal strength, channel utilization and other information. It should also support viewing historical connection data and generating network performance reports.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the administrator authentication system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the login system uses secure authentication practices: 1) Password hashing rather than plaintext storage 2) CSRF protection 3) Session timeout and management 4) Brute force protection mechanisms. Verify the implementation of the required credentials (username: admin, password: 123456) as a starting point, but evaluate if there's a secure way to change these default credentials. Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic authentication exists but has security flaws, 10 if authentication is secure and properly implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the wireless device management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the system properly implements the addition, editing, and deletion of wireless devices with all required fields (device name, model, MAC address, IP address, location). Check if input validation exists for MAC address format, IP address format, and required fields. Assess if the device listing includes filtering, sorting, and search capabilities. Score 0 if device management is missing, 5 if basic management exists but lacks validation or complete CRUD operations, 10 if fully implemented with proper validation and error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the device status monitoring system effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of real-time device status monitoring, including connection status (online/offline), connected user count, bandwidth utilization, and error rates. Check if the system includes alerts for device issues, polling mechanisms or WebSocket for updates, and visual status indicators. Deduct 5 points if there's no real-time or near real-time updates, 3 points if monitoring metrics are incomplete. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the floor plan visualization with signal coverage heat maps properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess the quality of the floor plan visualization system: 1) Accurate device positioning on the floor plan 2) Visual representation of signal strength using color gradients 3) Channel utilization visualization 4) Interactive elements for device selection and information display. Check if the heat map calculation appears realistic based on device positions and obstacles. Deduct 5 points if the heat map visualization is static rather than dynamic, 3 points if device positioning is not customizable. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network device connectivity issues, invalid user inputs, 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. Predictive analytics for network issues 2. Mobile app integration for notifications 3. Automated optimization suggestions based on usage patterns). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to view the same device data) 2. Function modules unrelated to network management (e.g., a built-in game or entertainment feature) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down 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/visualization/network layers), code organization, naming conventions, and build process automation. Evaluate the separation of concerns between backend and frontend components. 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) Enterprise-appropriate color scheme with clear status indicators 2) Proper layout spacing for dashboard elements 3) Professional typography with clear hierarchy for monitoring data vs. controls. Examine screenshots for crowded interface elements, confusing data visualization, or poorly organized navigation. Deduct 3 points for each usability issue, 5 points for poor information architecture, and 5 points for inaccessible color choices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the historical data and reporting system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the historical connection data and network performance reporting system meets enterprise needs: 1) Data visualization with appropriate charts 2) Date range selection for historical analysis 3) Export capabilities for reports (PDF, CSV) 4) Customizable metrics and KPIs. Evaluate if performance trend analysis is available and if reports contain actionable insights. Deduct 5 points if reports are static only, 3 points if data filtering is limited, and 5 points if export functionality is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/equipment-inventory-ledger-management.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1045,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Help me create an equipment inventory/ledger similar to this, including fields such as: serial number, station internal number, product number, equipment model name, asset value, main technical specifications, manufacturer, production date, purchase date, whether it's a measuring instrument, accuracy level, calibration status, equipment condition status, service life, dedicated personnel, and department. At the top, summarize the items that are in normal use, idle, under repair, scrapped, and the total count. Please implement this step by step, with detailed instructions as if for a beginner.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the database schema for the equipment inventory properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check if the schema includes all required fields (serial number, station internal number, product number, equipment model name, asset value, technical specifications, manufacturer, production date, purchase date, measuring instrument flag, accuracy level, calibration status, equipment condition, service life, dedicated personnel, department). Ensure proper data types are used (e.g., dates for dates, numeric for values, enums for statuses). Verify that appropriate constraints are implemented (primary keys, foreign keys, not-null constraints for critical fields). Score 0 if missing more than 5 fields, 5 if missing 1-4 fields, 10 if complete and properly typed.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the equipment status summary dashboard implemented effectively?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a summary section that accurately counts and displays equipment by status categories (normal use, idle, under repair, scrapped) and shows the total count. Check if the summary automatically updates when inventory changes. Verify if visualizations (charts/graphs) are used to represent the data. Score 0 if the summary is missing, 5 if it's static or incomplete, 10 if it's dynamic, complete, and visually informative.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are CRUD operations fully implemented for equipment management?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of Create, Read, Update, and Delete operations. Verify if the code allows adding new equipment with all required fields, viewing equipment details (individual and list views), updating equipment information, and removing/archiving equipment records. Check for validation of input data before processing. Score 0 if missing multiple CRUD operations, 5 if basic operations exist but lack validation or have limited functionality, 10 if all operations are fully implemented with proper validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the beginner-friendly step-by-step implementation guide comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the response includes clear, detailed instructions for implementation that a beginner could follow. Check if it breaks down complex concepts, explains technical terms, includes code comments, and provides guidance on potential pitfalls. Verify if it covers setup instructions, dependencies installation, and deployment steps. Score 0 if instructions are highly technical or missing, 5 if they cover basics but lack details, 10 if they are truly beginner-friendly and comprehensive.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input data, missing fields, duplicate entries, 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. Equipment maintenance scheduling/alerts 2. QR code generation for physical asset tagging 3. Historical tracking of status changes 4. Depreciation calculation 5. Export functionality to various formats). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to edit the same data) 2. Function modules unrelated to equipment inventory (e.g., unnecessary integrations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or UI elements). 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/business logic/view layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Responsive design for various screen sizes. 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 filtering and sorting mechanisms for equipment lists. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/equipment-owner-pocket-station-with-blueprints-sockets.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1169,
+  "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. Help me design a mini-program called \"Equipment Owner's Pocket Station,\" which needs to have features for importing substation blueprints and special method materials, as well as socket functionality.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the blueprint import functionality completely implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly handles various blueprint formats (SVG, DXF, PDF), implements proper parsing and rendering of technical drawings, and maintains accurate scale/proportion. Score 0 if import functionality is missing, 5 if only basic formats are supported without validation, and 10 if the implementation includes format validation, error handling, and proper scaling mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the special method materials management system well-designed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a comprehensive materials library that includes categorization, search functionality, and metadata management. Check if material properties are properly modeled with appropriate data structures. Deduct 5 points if searching/filtering is not implemented, 3 points if material versioning is missing. Give 10 points for a complete implementation that includes material compatibility checks and usage recommendations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the socket functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the WebSocket/Socket.IO implementation for real-time data exchange between clients and servers. Check for proper connection management, error handling, reconnection strategies, and data serialization. Deduct 5 points if there's no heartbeat mechanism, 3 points if security measures (authentication/encryption) are missing. The full score is 10 points for robust bidirectional communication with proper error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the application have a complete equipment management workflow?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements a full equipment lifecycle management system, including inventory tracking, maintenance scheduling, inspection records, and alert mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if historical tracking is not implemented, and 3 points if the maintenance reminder system is missing. Give 10 points if the implementation includes condition monitoring and predictive maintenance features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input data, network interruption, user operation 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. Augmented reality for equipment visualization 2. Voice command integration for hands-free operation 3. QR code scanning for quick equipment identification). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to import the same blueprint format) 2. Function modules unrelated to equipment management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 3D 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 business logic/UI/network 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-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/feedback-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 919,
+  "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. Clicking \"Submit Feedback\" will open a new page for writing feedback; change \"Feedback Notification\" to \"Historical Feedback\"; delete all content below \"Try to create a feedback box below\" and replace it with \"Resolved Feedback List\" for display, clicking on any specific feedback item will take you to the detailed feedback page; please provide me with all the code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the feedback form submission system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a complete feedback form with proper validation, submission handling, and page navigation. Check if clicking 'Submit Feedback' correctly opens a new page with a functional feedback form including input fields, validation logic, and submission processing. Score 0 if no form implementation exists, 5 if only basic form structure is present without validation, and 10 if complete form with validation, error handling, and successful submission flow is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic content replacement functionality correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code successfully changes 'Feedback Notification' to 'Historical Feedback' and replaces content below 'Try to create a feedback box below' with 'Resolved Feedback List'. Check if the DOM manipulation is clean and doesn't cause layout issues. Deduct 5 points if text replacement is incomplete, 3 points if DOM manipulation causes visual glitches, and 5 points if the replacement doesn't maintain proper styling consistency. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the feedback list display and navigation system properly constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements a functional feedback list that displays feedback items correctly and provides clickable navigation to detailed feedback pages. Evaluate if the list items are properly structured, clickable, and lead to appropriate detail pages. Deduct 5 points if list items are not properly formatted, 5 points if click navigation doesn't work, and 3 points if the detail page structure is missing or incomplete. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the complete page routing and state management implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes proper page routing between the main page, feedback submission page, and feedback detail pages. Check if state management maintains data consistency across page transitions and if browser navigation (back/forward) works correctly. Deduct 5 points if routing is implemented but buggy, 5 points if state is lost during navigation, and 3 points if browser navigation doesn't work properly. Give 10 points if fully implemented with smooth transitions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid form input, missing data, navigation errors, DOM manipulation failures, etc.) and provide friendly error messages or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases like empty submissions, malformed data, and failed page transitions. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic error handling, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that enhance user experience?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes valuable enhancements such as: 1) Auto-save draft functionality for feedback forms 2) Search/filter capability for feedback lists 3) Real-time form validation with helpful hints 4) Smooth page transitions with loading states 5) Responsive design adaptations. Add 2-3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant or unnecessary features?",
+      "description": "Strictly identify three types of redundancy: 1) Duplicate functionality implementations (e.g., multiple form validation methods) 2) Features unrelated to the feedback system (e.g., embedded games or unrelated widgets) 3) Over-engineered effects that don't serve the core purpose (e.g., excessive animations that slow down interactions). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with core functionality.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code demonstrate good engineering practices?",
+      "description": "Review code organization, modularity (separation of HTML structure, CSS styling, and JavaScript logic), proper naming conventions, and maintainability. Check for clean separation of concerns, reusable components, and consistent coding patterns. Deduct 5 points for poor code organization or heavy coupling; deduct 5 points if code duplication exceeds 30%; deduct 5 points for inconsistent naming or lack of proper code structure. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional visual standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern UI principles: 1) Consistent color scheme with appropriate contrast ratios 2) Proper typography hierarchy and readability (font sizes ≥ 14px, adequate line spacing) 3) Balanced layout with appropriate whitespace and element spacing 4) Clear visual hierarchy and information organization. Deduct 3 points for each visual inconsistency, 5 points for poor color choices affecting readability, and 5 points for cluttered or unprofessional layout. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Are the interactions smooth and provide clear user feedback?",
+      "description": "Assess whether user interactions provide immediate and clear feedback: 1) Button clicks show visual response within 100ms 2) Form submissions provide loading states and success/error feedback 3) Page transitions are smooth and indicate progress 4) Hover states and focus indicators are clearly visible 5) Navigation is intuitive and predictable. Deduct 5 points for each interaction lacking proper feedback, 3 points for slow response times, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/file-database-system-shell-management.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1340,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Now, let's implement specific functionality: for file management, implement current directory display and modification, current directory tree view, and provide file editing, modification, deletion, and download functions. For database management, implement database type selection like MySQL/PostgreSQL, etc., and provide various input fields for database connection. After successful connection, enable database operations. For system shell, implement an interactive command-line terminal that can execute system commands.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements directory navigation, tree view display, and file operations through HTML/JavaScript. Check if it includes file upload/download functionality, file editing capabilities, and proper file type handling (text files, images, etc.). Score 0 if core file operations are not implemented, 5 if only basic file listing is implemented, and 10 if all file management features including editing, deletion, and download are fully functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the database management functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the database connection system supports multiple database types (MySQL/PostgreSQL/SQLite), implements secure connection parameter handling, and provides query execution capabilities. Evaluate if it includes connection pooling, error handling for failed connections, and proper SQL query interface. Deduct 5 points if connection security is compromised, and 3 points if database type switching is not seamless. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the interactive command-line terminal fully functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the terminal implementation provides real-time command execution, proper output display, and command history functionality. Check if it handles both synchronous and asynchronous commands correctly, implements command auto-completion, and provides proper error handling for invalid commands. Deduct 5 points if command execution blocks the UI, and 3 points if terminal output formatting is poor. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the system security and permission management properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements proper access control for file operations, secure database credential handling, and command execution restrictions. Evaluate if it includes user authentication, file permission validation, and prevents dangerous command execution. Deduct 5 points if sensitive operations lack authorization checks, and 5 points if database credentials are stored insecurely. Give 10 points if comprehensive security measures are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as file access errors, database connection failures, command execution timeouts, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time file preview with syntax highlighting 2. Database query result visualization 3. Terminal command suggestions with AI assistance 4. Integrated file diff viewer). 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 deletion methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to system management (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during file operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating file management/database/terminal modules), error handling consistency, and configuration management. 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 configuration is hardcoded without environment variables. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching for different modules (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear module separation (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system for code display (monospace fonts for terminal/code, body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) File operation feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Database query progress indicators with proper loading states 3) Terminal command execution with real-time output streaming 4) Clear visual focus guidance between different management modules. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for blocking UI during long operations, and 5 points for hard-to-find navigation between modules. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}