@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/laboratory-instrument-calibration-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 546,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Laboratory Instrument Calibration Management System\n\nYou 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. Please write code to implement a laboratory instrument calibration management system for managing precision instruments that require regular calibration. The system needs to record each instrument's basic information (instrument number, name, model, accuracy class, etc.), calibration cycle, and historical calibration records (calibration date, calibration institution, calibration results, certificate number, etc.). The system needs to display the most recent calibration date and the next calibration due date, and automatically send reminder notifications before calibration expires. Laboratory personnel (username lab-user, password 123456) can view the calibration status of all instruments and submit calibration requests. The metrology supervisor (username metrology, password 123456) reviews applications, arranges calibration plans, registers calibration results, and uploads scanned calibration certificates. System administrators (username admin, password 123456) can add/edit instrument information, set calibration cycles and reminder times, and generate calibration statistical reports. The system should also support calibration cost management functionality to record and track calibration expenditures for various instruments.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the instrument management functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete instrument database with all required fields (instrument number, name, model, accuracy class, etc.). Check if CRUD operations for instruments are properly implemented and secured. Score 0 if basic instrument management is missing, 5 if only basic fields are implemented, 10 if complete with advanced features like instrument categories, location tracking, and status indicators.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the calibration tracking system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system correctly records calibration cycles, calculates next due dates, maintains complete historical records, and properly links calibration certificates. Score 0 if calibration tracking is absent, 5 if basic tracking exists but has calculation issues, and 10 if the system includes comprehensive history, accurate date calculations, and proper certificate management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the reminder notification system functional?",
+      "description": "Check if the system includes an automatic notification mechanism triggered by approaching calibration due dates. Verify if it supports multiple notification methods (email, in-system alerts, etc.), customizable reminder periods, and escalation for overdue calibrations. Deduct 5 points if notifications are manual only, 3 points if only one notification channel is implemented. Full score for a robust, configurable notification system with confirmation tracking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the role-based access control system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the three required roles (lab user, metrology supervisor, admin) are correctly implemented with appropriate permissions for each function. Check for secure authentication, proper session management, and access restrictions. Deduct 5 points if any role is missing core functionality, 5 points for security vulnerabilities in authentication. Full score requires complete permission management with audit trails for sensitive operations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid date inputs, duplicate instrument numbers, certificate upload 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. AI-based prediction of calibration drift 2. QR code generation for quick instrument information access 3. Dashboard with visual calibration status indicators). 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 notification systems with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to calibration management (e.g., a built-in chat system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations on critical paths). 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 database/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). 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": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/laboratory-instrument-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 661,
+  "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. Implement a laboratory instrument management system where users can search for instruments through the frontend, view detailed parameters, and check current status (available, occupied, under maintenance). Administrators have the authority to add new instruments, update instrument information, and manage maintenance records.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is a complete instrument search system implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements comprehensive search functionality with multiple filters (e.g., by type, availability, location), auto-complete suggestions, and relevance sorting. Score 0 if no search is implemented, 5 if only basic keyword search exists, and 10 if advanced search with filters and sorting is fully implemented with proper indexing for performance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the instrument detail view system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether detailed instrument information displays are implemented, including technical specifications, images, documentation links, usage history, and current status indicators. The parameters should be organized in collapsible sections with proper data validation. Score 0 if missing, 5 if basic information display only, and 10 if comprehensive with interactive elements and proper data formatting.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the instrument status management system complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system properly tracks and displays instrument status (available, occupied, under maintenance), includes status change timestamps, responsible personnel information, and estimated availability times. The status change mechanism should include appropriate validation and notification workflows. Deduct 5 points if history tracking is missing, and 3 points if status updates lack audit trails.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the administrator management interface fully functional?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the admin panel includes all required functionality: adding new instruments, updating information, managing maintenance records, and generating reports. Check for proper form validation, image uploads, and audit logging of all administrative actions. Deduct 5 points if batch operations are missing, and 3 points if the interface lacks confirmation dialogs for critical operations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, invalid inputs, concurrent edits, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should have proper exception handling, input validation, and data consistency checks. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
+      "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 equipment status visualization with floor maps 2. QR code generation for physical instrument tagging 3. Maintenance prediction algorithms 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 edit the same information) 2. Function modules unrelated to instrument management (e.g., built-in chat that could be handled by external systems) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow page loading). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating 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 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": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/large-file-uploads-react-nodejs-mongodb.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 729,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for display. Create a basic functionality for large file uploads combining React, Node.js, and MongoDB for data portability.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the client-side file chunking mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the React code implements file chunking correctly, including optimal chunk size determination (typically 2-5MB), MD5/SHA hash calculation for file identification, and proper progress tracking. Check if the implementation handles large files (>1GB) without browser freezing. Score 0 if chunking is not implemented, 5 if basic chunking exists but with suboptimal performance, and 10 if all aspects are well-implemented with performance considerations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the server-side chunk reception and assembly mechanism complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the Node.js server properly handles chunk reception, validation, temporary storage, and final assembly. Check for concurrent chunk processing, validation of chunk order and integrity, and proper error handling during assembly. Deduct 5 points if chunk validation is missing, 3 points if no concurrent processing is implemented, and 2 points if temporary file management is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the upload resume functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements upload resumption after interruption by maintaining chunk state, implementing client-server negotiation to identify missing chunks, and providing recovery mechanisms. Verify that the solution works across page refreshes using local storage or IndexedDB. Deduct 5 points if state persistence is missing, 3 points if chunk verification is incomplete, and 2 points if the UI doesn't reflect resumable status. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the MongoDB integration for file metadata properly designed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the MongoDB schema design for file metadata is properly implemented, including file versioning support, efficient querying capabilities, and metadata extraction. Check for appropriate indexing strategies and data validation. Deduct 5 points if the schema design is overly simplistic, 3 points if no indexes are defined, and 2 points if there's no metadata extraction from uploaded files. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common error scenarios such as network interruptions, server errors, disk space issues, malformed chunks, and duplicate uploads. Check for comprehensive error logging, user-friendly error messages, and graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should 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 processing/analysis during upload 2. Intelligent upload speed optimization based on network conditions 3. Client-side encryption 4. Advanced file type detection/validation). 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 hash calculation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to file upload (e.g., excessive analytics) 3. Performance-impacting features (e.g., unnecessary re-renders in React components). 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/API layers), test coverage for critical functions (especially chunk processing), and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if environment configuration is hardcoded. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clear visual progress indication with percentage and remaining time 2) Proper layout for file information and controls 3) Responsive design that works on different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for confusing progress indicators, and 5 points for non-responsive layouts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the upload experience conforms to user expectations: 1) Immediate feedback when files are selected 2) Smooth progress updates without UI jank 3) Clear status changes for upload states (queued, uploading, completed, failed). Deduct 5 points for laggy UI during uploads, 3 points for misleading progress indicators, and 5 points for missing upload status notifications. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/leankit-core-functions-pyside6-software-development.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 995,
+  "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. Develop software with LeanKit's core functions and features using PySide6, and generate complete executable code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core Kanban board functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements essential LeanKit features including drag-and-drop cards, columns/lanes configuration, and work item visualization. Score 0 if the Kanban board is not implemented, 5 if only basic card display exists without drag functionality, and 10 if the implementation includes full drag-and-drop support, column/lane customization, and card state management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are work item management features properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate implementation of card creation, editing, deletion, with proper attributes (title, description, assignee, due date, priority, etc.). Check if cards support custom fields, attachments, and comments. Deduct 5 points if cards lack essential attributes, 3 points if history tracking is missing, and 2 points if bulk operations are not supported. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the workflow configuration system implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether users can define custom workflows with columns, sub-columns, and swim lanes. Check if the implementation includes work-in-progress limits, card filtering, and policy enforcement. Deduct 5 points if column/lane customization is missing, 3 points if WIP limits aren't implemented, and 3 points if workflow rules cannot be defined. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are analytics and reporting features included?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of LeanKit's analytics features such as cycle time, lead time metrics, cumulative flow diagrams, and distribution charts. Verify that the system tracks historical data for reporting. Deduct 5 points if no analytics are present, 3 points if only basic charts exist without historical data, and 3 points if export functionality is missing. 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, concurrent operations, connection issues) 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-assisted card prioritization 2. Team member workload visualization 3. Automated bottleneck detection). 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 card creation dialogs) 2. Function modules unrelated to Kanban/LeanKit (e.g., built-in games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating model/view/controller layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation in the PySide6 implementation. 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 proper error handling and logging are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the PySide6 UI 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 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 in the PySide6 implementation. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy drag-and-drop operations, 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/legal-document-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 660,
+  "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 if possible. Please write code to implement a legal document management system where lawyers can upload, categorize, and retrieve various legal documents. The system should support document template generation, key clause extraction, full-text search, and document comparison functions. The system needs to provide strict access control, record document operation logs, and include features for document expiration reminders and automatic archiving.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the document upload and storage functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements secure file uploading with proper validation (file type, size limitations, virus scanning), storage with encryption at rest, and appropriate file organization. Check for metadata extraction upon upload to facilitate categorization. Score 0 if no upload functionality exists, 5 if basic upload exists without security measures, and 10 if comprehensive secure upload with metadata extraction is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the document categorization and retrieval system properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the taxonomy implementation for legal document categorization (by practice area, document type, client, status, etc.). Check if the retrieval system supports multiple access patterns (hierarchical navigation, filtering, sorting). Deduct 5 points if categorization is limited to basic folders, 3 points if dynamic taxonomy generation is missing, and 2 points if bulk categorization operations aren't supported. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the document template generation and key clause extraction features functioning correctly?",
+      "description": "Check if the template system can dynamically generate documents with variable substitution, conditional sections, and proper formatting. For clause extraction, verify NLP/ML techniques for identifying important legal clauses with proper highlighting and cross-referencing capabilities. Score 0 if neither feature exists, 5 if only basic templating exists without clause extraction, and 10 if both are fully implemented with advanced capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "How effective is the full-text search and document comparison implementation?",
+      "description": "Assess the search engine implementation (indexing strategy, query optimization, relevance ranking) and verify search features like fuzzy matching, Boolean operators, and faceted search. For document comparison, check for efficient diff algorithms, visual highlighting of differences, and version history tracking. Deduct 5 points if search lacks advanced operators, 3 points if comparison doesn't handle complex document structures, and 2 points if performance degrades with large documents. 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 duplicate uploads, corrupt files, search with no results, concurrent edits, 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-assisted document summarization 2. Legal risk analysis based on document content 3. Client collaboration portals 4. Integration with court e-filing systems). 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 search engines running in parallel) 2. Function modules unrelated to legal document management (e.g., built-in social media features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in a professional legal tool). 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 document processing/user management/security 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 legal software design principles: 1) Professional color scheme appropriate for legal context 2) Clean document preview and editing interfaces 3) Logical workflow organization with proper information hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for cluttered interfaces, 5 points for inconsistent design elements, and 5 points for poor readability of legal documents. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the security implementation comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system implements: 1) Role-based access control with fine-grained permissions 2) Comprehensive audit logging of all document operations 3) Document expiration and archiving automation 4) Data encryption both in transit and at rest. Deduct 5 points if access controls are simplistic, 3 points if audit logs are incomplete, 5 points if document lifecycle management is missing, and 5 points for inadequate encryption implementation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/liangchibao-mini-program-with-photo-upload-and-backend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1227,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. The Liangchibao mini-program code needs to allow on-site photo uploads with measurement data annotations, and special areas require text notes. Users publish measurement orders that staff members can accept and manage. There should also be backend management functionality. Please provide the complete detailed code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the photo upload and measurement annotation system complete?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements the complete photo upload flow including camera access permissions, compression, preview, and upload. Check if the code provides an intuitive interface for adding measurement annotations (like lengths, areas) directly on photos. Verify if annotations can be visually represented (lines, markers) with measurement data (values, units). Score 0 if basic upload is missing, 5 if upload works but annotations are limited, and 10 if the complete system with visual measurement tools is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the special area text note function properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can mark special areas on photos and add text notes to these specific regions. Check if the implementation includes: 1) Area selection tools (rectangular/freeform), 2) Text input mechanism tied to the selected area, 3) Visual representation showing the connection between notes and areas. Deduct 3 points if area selection is imprecise, 5 points if notes aren't visually linked to areas, and 3 points if text formatting options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the order publishing and management functions complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements the complete workflow for users to create, publish and track measurement orders. Verify if the system includes order parameters (location, requirements, deadline, pricing), status tracking, and notification mechanisms. For staff-side functionality, confirm if order acceptance, status updates, and completion reporting are implemented. Deduct 5 points if the workflow has gaps, 3 points if notification system is missing, and 3 points if order history/tracking is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the backend management system functional and comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the backend management system includes essential components: 1) User management (customers and staff), 2) Order oversight and intervention capabilities, 3) Data analytics and reporting, 4) System configuration options. Check if appropriate access controls and permission levels are implemented. Deduct 3 points for each missing major component, and 5 points if the admin interface lacks proper security controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as upload failures, network interruptions, invalid measurement inputs, permission denials, 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-assisted measurement suggestions, 2. Augmented reality measurement tools, 3. Voice annotations for measurements, 4. Real-time collaboration between users and staff). 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 photo capture mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to measurement or order management (e.g., social networking features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating business logic/view/data persistence layers), component reusability, and WeChat Mini Program best practices. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if WeChat Mini Program lifecycle events are mishandled. 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 photo manipulation, 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/line-inspection-app-uniapp-javascript.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 758,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable. Help me design a line inspection application with a frontend implemented in UniApp and a backend developed in JavaScript. The app should allow users to upload inspection photos and submit issues encountered during the inspection process.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the UniApp frontend architecture properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes proper UniApp component structure, page navigation, lifecycle hooks, and responsive layout. Check for proper use of conditional rendering, data binding, and event handling within the Vue-based framework. Score 0 if fundamental UniApp structure is missing, 5 if basic functionality exists but lacks optimization for multiple platforms, and 10 if the code demonstrates cross-platform compatibility (iOS, Android, H5) with adaptive designs.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the photo capture and upload functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine the implementation of device camera access, photo processing (compression, EXIF data handling, image optimization), and multi-photo upload queue management. Verify the code manages upload progress indicators, retry mechanisms on failure, and proper error handling. Deduct 4 points if image compression is missing, 3 points if upload progress tracking is not implemented, and 3 points if there's no offline photo storage for later upload. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the inspection issue submission system comprehensively designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides form validation for issue reporting, categorization capabilities, severity level assignment, location tagging (GPS coordinates), and association with uploaded photos. Check for draft saving functionality and submission confirmation. Deduct 3 points if geolocation is not implemented, 4 points if the relationship between photos and issues is poorly managed, and 3 points if validation is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the backend JavaScript implementation secure and efficient?",
+      "description": "Assess the backend code for proper authentication (JWT implementation), file storage security, input sanitization, and RESTful API design. Verify that the backend includes rate limiting, proper error handling with meaningful status codes, and logging capabilities. Deduct 3 points for missing authentication, 3 points for unsecured file uploads, 2 points for SQL injection vulnerabilities, and 2 points for improper error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruption, photo upload failure, form submission errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should handle edge cases like device permission denials, low storage warnings, and offline mode operations. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average robustness, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
+      "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. Voice-to-text for issue descriptions 2. Automated issue categorization using image recognition 3. AR markers for spatial reference 4. Offline operation mode with synchronization). 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. Duplicate implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple photo processing methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to inspection tasks 3. Unnecessarily complex animations or effects that affect performance on mobile devices. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core inspection functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of concerns between UI components, business logic, and API services), component reusability, and build/deployment configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 3 points if there's excessive component coupling; deduct 2 points if there's no environment configuration for development/production. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows mobile-first design principles: 1) Appropriate touch target sizes (minimum 44×44px) 2) Clear visual hierarchy with proper contrast ratios 3) Consistent design language across all screens 4) Proper form factor adaptation for various device sizes. Deduct 3 points for poor tap target sizing, 3 points for inconsistent design elements, and 4 points for layouts that break on different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the app's interactions follow mobile UX best practices: 1) Response to user actions within 100ms 2) Clear loading states for network operations 3) Intuitive form navigation and submission process 4) Smooth transitions between app sections. Deduct 3 points for sluggish photo upload previews, 3 points for confusing navigation patterns, and 4 points for unclear feedback during inspection submission. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/login-registration-list-view-interfaces.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1589,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create three interfaces: one for login, one for registration, and one for a list view.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the login interface properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the login interface includes all necessary elements: username/email field, password field with masking, remember me option, forgot password link, and submit button. Check for client-side validation of inputs (format checking, required fields). Verify that the interface handles authentication errors gracefully with appropriate user feedback. Score 0 if missing core elements, 5 if basic implementation only, 10 if fully implemented with validation and error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the registration form complete and secure?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the registration form includes all standard fields (username, email, password, confirm password), implements proper client-side validation (password strength requirements, email format validation, matching passwords), and provides clear feedback for validation errors. Check for terms of service agreement, privacy policy acknowledgment, and CAPTCHA/anti-bot measures. Deduct 3 points for each missing validation feature, 5 points if password security measures are inadequate. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the list view functional and well-designed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the list view properly displays data with consistent formatting, includes essential features like sorting, filtering, and pagination, and handles both empty states and data loading states. Check if the list items have appropriate actions (view details, edit, delete). Deduct 3 points if pagination is missing, 3 points if sorting/filtering is absent, and 4 points if the empty/loading states aren't handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is navigation between interfaces smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Check whether users can navigate seamlessly between login, registration, and list views. Verify the presence of navigation elements (buttons, links) in logical positions, consistent navigation patterns, and proper state management when switching views. Inspect for breadcrumbs or other orientation indicators. Deduct 3 points for each disconnected interface, 5 points for confusing navigation paths. 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 data, network issues, authentication failures) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like form validation errors, session timeouts, and unexpected server responses. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average robustness, and 0 points if no exceptions are handled.",
+      "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. Social login integration 2. Dark/light mode toggle 3. Responsive design for mobile devices 4. Animations for transitions between views). 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 validation systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core interfaces (e.g., unnecessary sidebars or widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations or unnecessary API calls). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components, services, and utilities), component reusability, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no build process or dependency management is evident. 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 form field, 5 points for inconsistent styling across interfaces, and 5 points for poor alignment of elements. 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 submission feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear focus states for form inputs and buttons. Deduct 5 points for forms without submission feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between interfaces, and 5 points for inaccessible interface elements (poor tab navigation, missing focus indicators). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}