@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/mobile-app-online-food-ordering.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1486,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable and ready for demonstration. I want to create a mobile app specifically for online food ordering, where customers can select menu items and place orders. Please help me generate a set of cloud-based code for this.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core food ordering system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the essential functions of a food ordering app: menu display, item selection, cart management, and order submission. Check if it includes proper validation for required order details (items, quantities, special instructions) and handles edge cases like out-of-stock items. Score 0 if the core ordering functionality is missing, 5 if only basic item selection is implemented, and 10 if the complete ordering flow with validation is present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the cloud backend properly configured for the mobile app?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the backend infrastructure uses appropriate cloud services (Firebase, AWS, Azure, etc.) with proper API endpoints for authentication, data storage, and order processing. Check if the implementation includes security measures like API keys, request validation, and data encryption. Deduct 5 points if there's no proper authentication system, and 3 points if there's no error handling for API failures. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is user authentication and profile management implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the app includes secure user registration, login, and profile management features. Verify implementation of password hashing, session management, and account recovery options. Examine if user preferences and order history are stored securely. Deduct 5 points if authentication lacks multi-factor options or secure password policies, 3 points if profile editing is limited or missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the payment processing system secure and functional?",
+      "description": "Analyze if the code includes integration with payment gateways, handles payment validation, and provides order confirmation. Check for implementation of secure payment methods, encryption of financial data, and compliance with financial regulations. Deduct 5 points if there's no payment validation logic, 3 points if receipt generation is missing, and 5 points if financial data isn't handled according to industry standards. 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 failures during ordering, payment processing errors, invalid input data, etc.) and provides friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. 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 order tracking 2. AI-based food recommendations 3. Augmented reality menu visualization 4. Dietary preference filtering). 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 add items to cart) 2. Function modules unrelated to food ordering (e.g., a built-in game while waiting) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when browsing menu). 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/business logic/data layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Examine the use of appropriate design patterns for mobile development. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no CI/CD pipeline configuration. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI design follows modern mobile app design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows touch-target size principles) 3) Professional typography system (readable font sizes, proper contrast ratios). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered screen, 5 points for non-responsive layouts, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the app interactions conform to mobile UX best practices: 1) Touch response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Loading indicators for network operations 3) Smooth transitions between screens 4) Proper keyboard handling for form inputs. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without feedback, 3 points for jerky animations, and 5 points for difficult-to-access primary functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/monthly-assessment-score-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1509,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible.\n\nBased on the CREATE TABLE `tb_mon_assessment_score` (\n  `N_PK_ID` bigint NOT NULL COMMENT 'Primary Key ID',\n  `C_TEAM_CODE` varchar(32) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Team Code',\n  `C_SALSE_CODE` varchar(32) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Salesperson Code',\n  `C_LEADER_CODE` varchar(32) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Team Leader',\n  `C_DEPT_CODE` varchar(32) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Affiliated Organization',\n  `C_ASSESSMENT` varchar(10) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Assessment Month',\n  `N_ASSESSMENT_SCORE` decimal(24,2) DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Assessment Score',\n  `C_REMARK` text CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci COMMENT 'Core Work This Week',\n  `C_DEL_FLAG` varchar(5) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Delete Flag 1=Deleted, 0=Not Deleted',\n  `C_CRTR_CODE` varchar(20) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Creator',\n  `D_CRTR_TIME` datetime DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Creation Time',\n  `C_UPTR_CODE` varchar(20) CHARACTER SET utf8mb4 COLLATE utf8mb4_general_ci DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Updater',\n  `D_UPTR_TIME` datetime DEFAULT NULL COMMENT 'Update Time',\n  PRIMARY KEY (`N_PK_ID`) USING BTREE\n) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb4 COLLATE=utf8mb4_general_ci COMMENT='Monthly Assessment Score Table';\n\nSearch Criteria:\n- Salesperson's Organization | Dropdown | Optional\n- Affiliated Team | Dropdown | Optional  \n- Salesperson | Dropdown | Optional\n- Month | Date control, range, yyyy-MM | Optional\n\nQuery List:\n- Salesperson | Auto-populated\n- Affiliated Team | Auto-populated\n- Team Leader | Auto-populated\n- Affiliated Organization | Auto-populated\n- Assessment Month | Auto-populated\n- Assessment Score | Auto-populated\n- Import Time | Auto-populated\n- Operations\n\nOperations:\n- Modify | Modify assessment score in the current list. Assessment score can only be a positive integer greater than 0. Cannot be modified if it crosses months compared to import time.\n- Delete | Cannot be modified if it crosses months compared to import time.\n\nButtons:\n- Search | Button\n- Reset | Button\n- Import | Button | Verify salesperson information, month, and assessment score during import. Generate according to previous format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the database interaction layer fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements CRUD operations for the tb_mon_assessment_score table, including proper SQL query construction, parameter binding, and connection management. Check if all table fields are properly mapped and handled. Score 0 if basic database operations are missing, 5 if only basic queries are implemented without proper error handling, and 10 if all operations including complex filtering and pagination are fully implemented with proper transaction management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the search criteria and filtering functions properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether all four search criteria (Organization dropdown, Team dropdown, Salesperson dropdown, Month date range) are correctly implemented with proper data validation and SQL query construction. Check if dropdowns are populated from related tables and if the month range picker works correctly with yyyy-MM format. Deduct 3 points for each missing or malfunctioning search criterion. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the business logic validations correctly enforced?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements critical business rules: 1) Assessment score validation (positive integer > 0) 2) Cross-month modification restrictions based on import time 3) Data import validation for salesperson, month, and score. Review if proper error messages are displayed when validation fails. Deduct 5 points if cross-month validation is missing, 3 points if score validation is incomplete, and 2 points for each missing import validation rule. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data import functionality robust and complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the import feature includes file format validation, data parsing, duplicate checking, batch processing, and rollback mechanisms on failure. Check if the system properly validates salesperson existence, month format, and score values during import. Deduct 5 points if batch processing is not implemented, 3 points if validation feedback is unclear, and 2 points if rollback mechanism 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 database connection failures, invalid input data, file upload errors, concurrent access 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 enhance user experience?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes practical features that improve usability (e.g., 1. Bulk operations for multiple records 2. Export functionality with custom filters 3. Real-time validation feedback 4. Auto-save draft functionality 5. Advanced search with multi-criteria combinations). Add 2 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (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 logics for the same field) 2. Function modules unrelated to assessment management (e.g., built-in calculators or unrelated widgets) 3. Over-engineered features that don't add business value (e.g., complex animations on data grids). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if 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 layer/business logic/presentation layer), proper error handling, logging mechanisms, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if there's tight coupling between layers or no separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if proper logging and monitoring are not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional management system standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows enterprise application design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme suitable for business environment 2) Proper data grid layout with clear column headers and sorting indicators 3) Professional form design with clear labels and validation feedback 4) Intuitive navigation and operation buttons placement. Deduct 3 points for each poorly designed form element, 5 points for unprofessional color choices, and 3 points for unclear data presentation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user interaction smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system interactions are optimized for business users: 1) Quick response to search and filter operations (≤ 2 seconds for typical queries) 2) Clear feedback for all operations including success/error states 3) Intuitive workflow from search to edit to save 4) Proper loading states and progress indicators. Deduct 5 points for each operation without clear feedback, 3 points for slow response times, and 5 points for confusing operation workflows. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/multi-system-demo-overview.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1741,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure the code you generate is executable. Our company has 10 systems, and we now need to create a large preview page, similar to a navigation homepage, where all systems are placed together. Through accessing a domain address, with automatically filled username and password, customers can easily click to see a demonstration page. Please develop a design that is visually appealing and impressive.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the navigation homepage layout well-designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the layout structure for the 10 system previews. Check if it uses responsive grid design, appropriate spacing, and visual hierarchy. The layout should maintain consistency across different screen sizes. Award 10 points for a professional grid system with breakpoints for multiple devices; 5 points if only basic layout is implemented without responsiveness; 0 points if systems are placed randomly without proper structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the automatic authentication mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify the implementation of automatic username/password filling. Check if it uses secure methods (like JWT, OAuth, or secure cookies) rather than hardcoded credentials. Examine if the authentication is seamless for customers while maintaining security standards. Award 10 points for secure, seamless implementation; deduct 5 points if credentials are exposed in client-side code; 0 points if authentication doesn't work.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the system preview cards/tiles designed professionally?",
+      "description": "Review the visual design of each system preview card/tile. Check for consistent styling, appropriate information hierarchy, system logos/icons, and clear call-to-action buttons. Each preview should give users a clear understanding of the system's purpose. Award 10 points for professionally designed cards with all necessary elements; 5 points for basic implementation; deduct points for inconsistent design across cards.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the single sign-on (SSO) mechanism for accessing multiple systems implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine how the solution handles authentication across the 10 different systems. Check if it implements proper SSO functionality to prevent users from having to log in multiple times. Verify if session management and token passing between systems are handled securely. Award 10 points for a complete SSO implementation; 5 points if only basic inter-system authentication exists; 0 points if users must authenticate separately for each system.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as authentication failures, network errors, system unavailability, 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. Interactive system previews/thumbnails 2. Custom theme selector for the navigation interface 3. Usage statistics dashboard for each system). 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) 2. Function modules unrelated to navigation/preview (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy 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 authentication/UI/navigation logic), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. 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": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/murder-mystery-game-material-management.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 466,
+  "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. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are given a software development requirement description, and you need to generate project code according to this requirement. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You will always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure that the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure that all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before the final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or the need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nImplement a murder mystery game material management system that supports uploading character scripts and clue card images and associating them with plot nodes. Provide clue distribution control functions (unlocked according to game progress), including player-side APP data synchronization interface (displaying obtained clues).",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core data model structure for the mystery game management system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the data model includes essential entities: Game/Case, Characters, Plot Nodes, Clues, and their relationships. The model should support hierarchical relationships between these entities. Score 0 if core entities are missing, 5 if basic relationships exist but lack necessary fields, and 10 if the model is comprehensive with proper normalization and indexing for efficient queries.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the character script management functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Check if the system allows uploading, editing, versioning, and associating character scripts to specific plot nodes. The implementation should include script formatting, character-specific views, and timeline organization. Deduct 3 points if versioning is missing, 4 points if there's no ability to associate scripts with plot points, and 3 points if formatting options are limited. Full score requires conflict resolution for collaborative editing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the clue card image management system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system handles image uploads with proper validation (file types, size limits), provides image manipulation features (cropping, resizing), includes metadata management, and allows tagging/categorization of clues. Deduct 3 points for missing image validation, 3 points for lack of preview functionality, and 4 points if there's no option to associate images with specific plot points or characters.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the plot node progression system and clue distribution logic implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of conditional unlocking of clues based on game progress. The system should include a rule engine for triggering clue availability, dependencies between clues, and time-based or action-based unlock mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if conditions can't be customized, 3 points if there's no visual timeline/flowchart representation, and 2 points if testing/simulation tools for progression are missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid uploads, concurrent edits, 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. AI-assisted mystery plot generation 2. Real-time collaborative game master tools 3. Voice narration for clues 4. Augmented reality clue visualization). 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 image upload systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to mystery game management (e.g., a built-in social network) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations in admin panels). 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 model/controller/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 player-side APP data synchronization interface well-implemented?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the synchronization mechanism meets requirements: 1) REST/GraphQL API for clue retrieval with proper authentication 2) Real-time updates via WebSockets/polling with ≤ 2s delay 3) Offline mode with local storage and conflict resolution when reconnecting. Deduct 4 points if authentication is weak or missing, 3 points if synchronization is only one-way, and 3 points if there's no offline capability. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/music-material-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 520,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible.\n\n## Role ##\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are given a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code according to the project requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand language comments. Don't output anything else.\n\n## Output Rules ##\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code, and ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output to evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or use of user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data\n\n## Project Requirements Description ##\nPlease write code to implement a music material management system where musicians can upload their audio files, set metadata such as BPM and key, add categorization tags. The system should support online audio playback, waveform display, audio editing, favorites organization, and provide advanced search functionality by style, mood, length and other attributes.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio file upload and management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements audio file upload with proper validation (format, size limits), metadata extraction/editing (BPM, key, duration), and categorization tag management. Check if file storage is properly handled with unique naming and path management. Score 0 if core upload functionality is missing, 5 if only basic upload is implemented without metadata handling, and 10 if complete audio management with validation and metadata is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the online audio playback and waveform visualization implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the audio player includes standard controls (play/pause/seek/volume), real-time waveform display using Web Audio API or Canvas, and visual progress indicators. Evaluate if waveform rendering is smooth and responsive. Deduct 5 points if waveform display is missing or non-functional, 3 points if playback controls are incomplete or unresponsive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the audio editing functionality designed with proper tools?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides essential audio editing capabilities such as trim/cut, fade in/out, volume adjustment, and basic effects. Check if editing operations are reflected in real-time waveform updates and if changes can be saved/exported. Deduct 5 points if only basic trim functionality exists, 3 points if real-time preview is missing. Give 10 points if comprehensive editing tools are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the advanced search and filtering system constructed effectively?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes comprehensive search functionality by multiple attributes (style, mood, BPM range, key, duration, tags) with proper indexing and filtering logic. Evaluate if search results are displayed efficiently with pagination or infinite scroll. Deduct 5 points if search is limited to basic text matching, 3 points if performance optimization is missing for large datasets. Give 10 points if fully implemented with advanced filtering options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, network interruption during upload, unsupported formats, storage quota exceeded, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the music management experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered BPM/key detection 2. Collaborative playlist creation 3. Audio similarity matching 4. Spectral analysis visualization 5. Smart tagging suggestions). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple audio player instances) 2. Function modules unrelated to music management (e.g., built-in social media integration) 3. Fancy effects that affect audio performance (e.g., excessive visual animations during playback). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core audio 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 audio processing/UI/data management layers), proper error handling, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or audio context is not properly managed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if audio resources are not properly disposed of to prevent memory leaks. 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 music application design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching suitable for audio interfaces (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing for music controls (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for audio metadata display. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic audio control layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the audio interface interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Audio control response delay ≤ 50ms 2) Waveform rendering smooth at 60fps 3) Smooth transitions between different views 4) Clear visual feedback for all audio operations 5) Intuitive drag-and-drop for file uploads. Deduct 5 points for each audio operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for laggy waveform display, and 5 points for unresponsive audio controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/nba-fan-community-web-application-architecture.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1454,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible.\n\n+-----------------------------+\n|          Access Layer       |\n|-----------------------------|\n| PC Client                   |\n+-----------------------------+\n            ↓\n+-----------------------------+\n|          Frontend UI        |\n|-----------------------------|\n| HTML                        |\n| CSS                         |\n| JavaScript                  |\n| BootStrap                   |\n+-----------------------------+\n            ↓\n+-----------------------------+\n|       Presentation Layer    |\n|-----------------------------|\n| POST requests               |\n| GET requests                |\n+-----------------------------+\n            ↓\n+-----------------------------+\n|        Business Layer       |\n|-----------------------------|\n| User Functions:             |\n|  - Login/Registration       |\n|  - Browse NBA Fan Community |",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a secure login/registration system, including input validation, proper password hashing, session management, and CSRF protection. Score 0 if authentication is not implemented, 5 if basic login/registration exists but lacks security features, and 10 if it includes comprehensive security measures like rate limiting and multi-factor authentication options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the NBA Fan Community browsing functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the community browsing system includes content filtering, pagination, search functionality, and proper data loading states. Deduct 3 points if pagination is missing, 3 points if search functionality is absent, and 2 points if there are no loading states. A complete implementation should display NBA-related content in an organized manner with proper user interaction. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the frontend-backend communication properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of HTTP requests (GET/POST) between the presentation layer and business layer, including proper error handling, status code interpretation, and response processing. Check for API versioning, consistent response formats, and proper content-type headers. Deduct 5 points if error handling is missing, and 3 points if requests lack proper headers or payload formatting. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the system architecture properly implemented according to the specified layers?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code properly follows the specified four-layer architecture (Access Layer, Frontend UI, Presentation Layer, Business Layer) with clear separation of concerns. Check that each layer only communicates with adjacent layers and maintains proper encapsulation. Deduct 3 points for each instance of layer violation (e.g., Access Layer directly communicating with Business Layer). 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 errors, invalid inputs, authentication failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time NBA score updates 2. Personalized content recommendations 3. Interactive fan polls/surveys). 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) 2. Function modules unrelated to NBA fan community (e.g., general sports news not specific to NBA) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 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 API calls), code organization, and responsive design 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 responsive design principles aren't followed for different screen sizes. 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 scrolling, 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/nextjs-vite-ssr-typescript-micro-frontend-project.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1012,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the code you generate is executable and demonstrable. Build a complete project using Next.js/Vite that includes SSR+TypeScript+micro-frontend architecture.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Next.js/Vite project structure properly implemented with SSR support?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly configures Next.js or Vite with SSR capabilities. Check for proper configuration files (next.config.js or vite.config.ts), server-side entry points, and hydration mechanisms. Score 0 if SSR is not implemented, 5 if basic SSR is configured but with hydration issues, and 10 if full SSR implementation with proper data fetching methods (getServerSideProps/getStaticProps for Next.js or equivalent patterns in Vite) is present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is TypeScript properly integrated throughout the project?",
+      "description": "Evaluate TypeScript configuration quality including tsconfig.json settings, strict mode usage, and proper type definitions. Check for type safety in component props, API responses, state management, and micro-frontend interfaces. Deduct 3 points for missing or incomplete type definitions, 3 points for any 'any' type usage without justification, and 4 points if TypeScript is only superficially implemented without leveraging its benefits for code safety. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the micro-frontend architecture correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code properly implements micro-frontend patterns with clear module federation, independent deployability, and proper runtime integration. Check for container/host application configuration, remote/child applications structure, and shared dependency management. Deduct 5 points if micro-frontends cannot be developed independently, 3 points for poor boundary definition between micro-frontends, and 5 points if shared state management or styling is inconsistent. Give 10 points for a complete implementation with proper isolation and integration strategies.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are communication patterns between micro-frontends robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of communication mechanisms between micro-frontends. Look for event-based communication systems, shared API interfaces, proper state propagation, and error handling between boundaries. Score 0 if no communication mechanism exists, 5 if basic communication exists but lacks error handling or type safety, and 10 if comprehensive, type-safe communication with fallback mechanisms is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as SSR/CSR mismatch, module loading failures, network interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error boundaries or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should implement error boundaries at micro-frontend boundaries, handle hydration errors, and manage asynchronous loading states. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points if only basic error handling exists, and 0 points if exceptions are unmanaged.",
+      "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. Progressive bundle loading with prioritization 2. Microfrontend-aware dev tools or visualization 3. Automatic state persistence across microfrontends). 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 across micro-frontends that could be shared 2. Unused libraries or dependencies increasing bundle size 3. Over-engineered solutions where simpler approaches would suffice. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core architecture is compromised by redundant implementation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review build pipeline configuration, code splitting strategies, modular design, and testing frameworks integration. Check for CI/CD setup, proper webpack/rollup/turbopack configurations for microfrontends, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points for missing build optimizations, 3 points for inadequate testing setup, and 2 points for poor documentation of the architecture. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design system is consistent across micro-frontends: 1) Unified component library usage 2) Consistent theming implementation (CSS variables or styled-system) 3) Responsive design patterns applied uniformly. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistency between micro-frontends, 5 points for conflicting design patterns, and 5 points for accessibility issues (WCAG compliance failures). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the performance optimization comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the performance considerations address micro-frontend specific challenges: 1) Bundle size optimization and code splitting 2) Shared runtime dependencies management 3) Loading sequence optimization and critical path rendering. Deduct 3 points for each microfrontend exceeding 200KB initial load, 5 points for render-blocking resources, and 5 points if Core Web Vitals metrics (LCP, FID, CLS) aren't explicitly addressed in the implementation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/novel-character-details-panel.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 731,
+  "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 display. Create a character information panel for a novel, including details such as race, age, potential, and other information (Human female who has awakened the Yan-Huang bloodline).",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the character information panel structure logically organized?",
+      "description": "Review whether the HTML structure creates a clear visual hierarchy with proper semantic tags (section, article, header). Check if information is categorized logically (basic info, attributes, abilities, background). Score 0 if the structure is chaotic, 5 if basic organization exists but lacks semantic clarity, and 10 if information is perfectly structured with semantic HTML and logical grouping.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the character's Yan-Huang bloodline feature prominently displayed and visually distinguished?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the special bloodline feature is highlighted through visual cues (unique styling, icons, color coding) rather than just mentioned in text. The bloodline should be immediately recognizable as the character's defining trait. Deduct 5 points if the bloodline is only mentioned textually without visual emphasis, and 3 points if the visual treatment isn't distinctive enough from other attributes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the panel include interactive elements to explore character details?",
+      "description": "Check for interactive elements like expandable sections, tooltips for abilities, tabbed interfaces for different information categories, or hover effects that reveal additional lore. Score 0 if no interactivity exists, 5 if basic interactions (like simple toggles) are implemented, and 10 if rich, intuitive interactions enhance the exploration of character information.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a visual representation of the character's attributes and potential?",
+      "description": "Assess whether attributes (strength, intelligence, etc.) and potential are presented with visual charts (radar charts, progress bars, star ratings) rather than just numbers. The visualization should make attribute comparisons intuitive. Deduct 5 points if only text values are used, and 3 points if visualizations exist but are hard to interpret. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases (missing data fields, long text content, browser compatibility issues) and provides fallbacks or graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should validate inputs and handle display issues across devices. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic safeguards, and 0 points if the panel breaks easily.",
+      "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. Dynamic character portraits that change with stat modifications 2. Timeline visualization of character development 3. Animated bloodline effects). 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 display of the same information 2. Unnecessary animations that don't convey meaning 3. Feature bloat unrelated to character information display. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core information readability is compromised by excessive elements.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of data and presentation logic), code reusability (component-based approach), and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 5 points if styling and logic are tightly coupled without separation; deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or documentation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows fantasy/novel UI conventions while maintaining professional standards: 1) Thematic color palette appropriate for the fantasy setting 2) Typography hierarchy with decorative elements for headers but readable body text 3) Balanced white space that creates an elegant layout. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent styling, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for misaligned elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether transitions and animations enhance the storytelling: 1) Subtle hover effects that highlight important information 2) Smooth transitions between different information sections 3) Loading states for any dynamic content. Deduct 5 points for jarring or abrupt transitions, 3 points for animations that feel disconnected from the fantasy theme, and 5 points for interactions that interrupt the narrative flow. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}