@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/office-document-annotation-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 483,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable. Develop an office document annotation tool. Users can upload office documents (such as DOCX format) through the frontend, and add annotations to the document (annotator, annotation content, annotation time). Other users can view the annotation information, and the tool supports replying to and modifying annotations.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the document uploading and rendering functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete file upload system with proper validation for document formats (DOCX, etc.), secure file handling, and accurate rendering of the document content in the browser. Check if it handles different document structures properly and maintains formatting. Score 0 if document upload/rendering is not implemented, 5 if basic uploading works but rendering has issues, 10 if the system fully supports uploading and displaying documents with preserved formatting.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the annotation system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete annotation system that allows users to select portions of text/content and add annotations (including annotator info, content, and timestamp). Check if annotations are visually distinguishable and properly positioned relative to the document content. Deduct 5 points if annotation positioning is inaccurate, 3 points if timestamp tracking is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the annotation interaction functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code implements functionality for viewing, replying to, and modifying annotations. Check if the system tracks edit history for annotations and if permission controls are in place (who can edit which annotations). Deduct 4 points if reply threading is missing, 3 points if annotation editing lacks version control, and 3 points if permission management is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the document/annotation persistence mechanism robust?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements proper storage and retrieval of both documents and annotations. Check if annotations are stored separately from documents but linked appropriately, and if the system handles concurrent edits properly. Deduct 4 points if annotations aren't properly persisted across sessions, 3 points if there's no conflict resolution for concurrent edits, and 3 points if the storage mechanism doesn't scale well. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common error scenarios (invalid document formats, large files, concurrent editing conflicts, etc.) and provides friendly error messages or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time collaborative annotation with presence indicators 2. AI-assisted annotation categorization 3. Document comparison with annotation highlighting 4. Analytics dashboard for annotation activities). 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 annotation systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to document annotation (e.g., a built-in chat system not tied to annotations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when viewing annotations). 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 document handling/annotation logic/view/storage 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 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) Annotation creation feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance when switching between annotations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during document scrolling, and 5 points for hard-to-find annotation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-approval-workflow-management-system-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1153,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you generate is executable and functional. Create an online approval workflow management system for an office platform using front-end technologies, with support for custom form templates. Build the interactive interface using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. On the approval workflow page, users should be able to design form templates themselves to meet diverse approval requirements. Display approval process progress in real-time, enabling monitoring and management of each approval stage. When new approval data is generated, the system status should update in real-time, dynamically changing the color or style of approval nodes to visually reflect the progress of the approval process.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the custom form template builder fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements a complete form template builder that allows users to drag-and-drop form elements, customize field types (text, numbers, dates, dropdowns, etc.), set validations, and save templates. Score 0 if the builder is not implemented, 5 if only basic field addition is possible, and 10 if the full WYSIWYG editor with preview functionality is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the workflow designer component functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides a visual workflow designer that allows users to define approval steps, assign approvers/roles, create conditional branches, and set up parallel/sequential approvals. Check if it includes features like timeout settings and escalation rules. Deduct 3 points if the workflow lacks conditional logic, 4 points if it doesn't support parallel approvals, and 3 points if there's no way to visualize the complete workflow. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the real-time approval progress visualization implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements visual representation of approval workflows with clear node statuses (pending, approved, rejected, in progress) using appropriate color coding and iconography. Check if the visualization updates in real-time without page refresh. Deduct 5 points if the visualization is static (requires refresh), and 5 points if status changes aren't visually distinct. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data synchronization mechanism robust?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system uses WebSockets, Server-Sent Events, or long polling to achieve real-time updates. Check for optimistic UI updates with server validation, conflict resolution mechanisms, and offline support with data reconciliation. Deduct 4 points if updates require manual refresh, 3 points if there's no conflict resolution, and 3 points if there's no offline functionality. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases (invalid form submissions, network failures, concurrent edits, etc.) and provides appropriate error handling and user feedback. Check for form validation, data persistence during browser crashes, and session handling. Deduct 3 points for missing input validation, 4 points for poor error handling, and 3 points for lack of data recovery mechanisms. Full score is 10 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-suggested approval paths based on form content 2. Mobile-responsive design with push notifications 3. Analytics dashboard for approval metrics 4. Document attachment and version control). Add 2.5 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 implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple notification systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to approval workflows (e.g., a built-in chat system) 3. Excessive animations or effects that impact performance. 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 architecture (separation of form builder, workflow engine, and UI components), code reusability, and maintainability. Check for proper state management patterns, component-based design, and clean interfaces between modules. Deduct 3 points for global state pollution, 4 points if there's significant code duplication, and 3 points if there's tight coupling between unrelated components. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme that differentiates workflow states clearly 2) Intuitive layout with proper hierarchical information display 3) Responsive design that works across devices. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent styling, 3 points for poor information hierarchy, and 4 points for non-responsive layouts that break on different screen sizes. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions feel natural and responsive: 1) Form elements respond immediately to user input 2) Workflow node transitions are animated smoothly (200-400ms) 3) Status changes provide visual feedback 4) Drag-and-drop operations have appropriate physics. Deduct 2.5 points for each interaction issue: laggy form inputs, abrupt state changes, missing hover states, or confusing action feedback. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-examination-system-with-auto-grading.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 553,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please implement an online examination system where administrators can create exams, add question banks (multiple choice, true/false, fill-in-the-blank), set exam times and scoring rules; teachers can schedule exams for specific classes, view exam results and statistical analysis; students can take exams within the specified time, with the system automatically timing, submitting when time expires, and displaying scores and error analysis after the exam ends. The system should also support automatic grading and score export functionality.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the exam creation and question bank management fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether administrators can create exams with various question types (multiple choice, true/false, fill-in-the-blank), set up customizable question banks, define exam durations, and establish scoring rules. Score 0 if the admin interface is missing, 5 if only basic question creation is implemented without proper validation, and 10 if the complete exam management system includes question versioning, categorization by difficulty, and dynamic scoring rules.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the teacher management functions properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of teacher-specific features including exam scheduling for specific classes, viewing detailed exam results, and accessing comprehensive statistical analysis tools. Check if data visualization for performance metrics is included. Deduct 3 points if class management is incomplete, 4 points if statistical analysis lacks depth (no distribution charts or performance trends), and 5 points if there's no batch operation capability for managing multiple exams/classes. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the student exam-taking experience complete and reliable?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the student interface allows seamless exam participation with proper timing mechanisms, auto-save functionality, and prevention of unauthorized navigation/cheating. Check if the system enforces automatic submission when time expires and provides comprehensive score display with detailed error analysis. Deduct 5 points if anti-cheating measures are absent, 3 points if auto-save isn't implemented, and 5 points if error analysis is superficial. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the automatic grading system accurate and comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Verify if the system can automatically grade different question types accurately, handle partial credits for complex questions, and efficiently export scores in various formats (CSV, Excel, PDF). Test if the grading algorithm correctly processes edge cases like partially correct answers. Deduct 5 points if only basic scoring is implemented without handling edge cases, 3 points if export functionality is limited, and 5 points if there's no provision for manual overrides by teachers. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common abnormal situations (e.g., network interruptions during exams, concurrent access issues, browser crashes, invalid inputs) and provides appropriate recovery mechanisms. Test edge cases like exam submission in the last second or multiple login attempts. Deduct 3 points for each unhandled critical issue. Code with strong robustness that gracefully handles these situations earns 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered question generation 2. Plagiarism detection algorithms 3. Adaptive difficulty based on student performance 4. Integrated video proctoring). Add 2.5 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 create the same type of question) 2. Function modules unrelated to an examination system (e.g., social networking features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during crucial exam-taking). 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 (separation of core exam logic, user interfaces, authentication systems), test coverage for critical paths (especially exam submission and grading), and database schema optimization. Deduct 3 points if global state management is messy, 3 points if no data validation exists between layers, 2 points if the code duplication rate exceeds 20%, and 2 points if there's no error logging system. 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 education software design principles: 1) Clear visual hierarchy distinguishing between admin, teacher, and student views 2) Consistent color schemes with appropriate contrast for extended reading 3) Intuitive navigation especially for time-sensitive exam interfaces 4) Responsive design for various device sizes. Deduct 2.5 points for each major design inconsistency, 5 points for accessibility issues (small text, poor contrast), and 3 points for cluttered exam interfaces. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system interactions prioritize exam integrity: 1) Question transitions load under 200ms 2) Auto-save indicators provide clear feedback 3) Time remaining notifications are prominent without being distracting 4) Submission process confirms actions to prevent accidental data loss. Deduct 3 points for laggy question navigation, 3 points for unclear submission status, 2 points for distracting animations during exams, and 2 points for confusing error messages. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-folder-file-management-tool-tree-view.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 559,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable when possible. Create an online folder and file management tool where users can create folders, upload files, rename, move, and delete files, with support for a tree-view interface to display the file structure.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the file and folder management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements core file operations including create folder, upload files, rename, move, and delete functionality. Check if the implementation includes proper file validation (size limits, type restrictions), progress tracking for uploads, and batch operations support. Score 0 if core CRUD operations are missing, 5 if only basic create/delete is implemented, and 10 if all file management operations are fully functional with proper validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the tree-view interface properly implemented and interactive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the tree structure visualization includes expandable/collapsible nodes, drag-and-drop functionality for moving files, context menus for operations, and proper visual hierarchy. Check if the tree updates dynamically when operations are performed and maintains state consistency. Deduct 5 points if drag-and-drop is missing, 3 points if tree state doesn't sync with operations, and 3 points if visual hierarchy is unclear. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the backend storage and API architecture properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the backend implements RESTful APIs for file operations, proper file storage mechanism (local/cloud), database schema for file metadata, and security measures for file access. Evaluate if the API handles concurrent operations, file versioning, and maintains data integrity. Deduct 5 points if API endpoints are incomplete, 3 points if no security validation exists, and 5 points if concurrent operation conflicts are not handled. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is real-time synchronization and state management implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system implements real-time updates across multiple sessions, proper state management for file operations, and conflict resolution for simultaneous edits. Check if WebSocket or similar technology is used for live updates and if the system maintains consistency between frontend display and backend state. Deduct 5 points if no real-time sync exists, 3 points if state conflicts occur, and 5 points if multiple user operations cause data corruption. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as large file uploads, network interruption, invalid file types, 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 experience (e.g., 1. File preview functionality with thumbnails 2. Advanced search and filtering capabilities 3. File sharing with permission management 4. Breadcrumb navigation with quick access 5. Keyboard shortcuts for power users). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file management (e.g., built-in text editor, media player) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., heavy animations during file operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core file management functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating file operations/UI components/API layers), proper error handling, code organization, and scalability considerations. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or component architecture is poorly structured; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper separation of concerns exists. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the file manager design follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent iconography and visual language 2) Proper spacing and grid system (8px multiples) 3) Clear file type differentiation through icons/colors 4) Professional typography hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each unclear visual element, 5 points for inconsistent design patterns, and 5 points for poor file/folder distinction. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the file operations provide immediate feedback: 1) File upload progress indicators and status feedback 2) Smooth tree expansion/collapse animations (200-400ms) 3) Drag-and-drop visual feedback and drop zones 4) Loading states for file operations 5) Hover effects and selection states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without visual feedback, 3 points for laggy interactions during file operations, and 5 points if drag-and-drop lacks proper visual cues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-image-tagging-classification-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 549,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please implement an online image tagging and classification tool where users can upload images and add custom tags and categories to each image. The tool should support multi-level classification, tag search and filtering, and provide a visual gallery displaying all categorized and tagged images.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the image upload and processing functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete image upload system with proper file validation, size restrictions, format checking, and error handling. Verify if images are properly stored and retrieved. Score 0 if image upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or error handling, and 10 if the implementation includes comprehensive validation, preview functionality, and robust error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the tagging system fully functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the tagging system allows users to add, edit, and delete custom tags for images. Check if tags can be applied to multiple images and if the interface provides an intuitive way to manage tags. Deduct 3 points if tag editing is not supported, 3 points if batch tagging is missing, and 4 points if there's no tag suggestion or autocompletion feature. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the multi-level classification system implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code supports creating hierarchical categories (e.g., Nature > Landscapes > Mountains) with proper parent-child relationships. Check if images can be assigned to multiple categories at different levels. Deduct 5 points if only single-level categories are supported, 3 points if category reorganization (moving subcategories) is not possible, and 2 points if visual hierarchy indication is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the search and filtering functionality comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the tool offers advanced search capabilities including tag-based filtering, category filtering, combined filters, and sorting options. Check if the search is performant with large datasets. Score 0 if search is not implemented, 5 if only basic tag search exists, and 10 if the implementation includes real-time search, multiple filter combinations, and relevance sorting.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid image formats, network interruptions, large file uploads, 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 auto-tagging 2. Image similarity detection 3. Tag cloud visualization 4. Drag-and-drop organization). Add 2.5 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 the same tag) 2. Function modules unrelated to image tagging (e.g., a built-in audio player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when browsing images). 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 management/UI/image processing layers), code reusability, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 20%); deduct 2 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 image gallery layout (consistent thumbnails, proper grid/masonry layout). Deduct 3 points for inconsistent thumbnail sizes, 4 points for poor visual hierarchy in the tagging interface, and 3 points for chaotic category display. 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) Image loading employs lazy loading and/or progressive rendering 2) Tag filtering produces immediate visual feedback 3) Gallery transitions are smooth when switching categories. Deduct 4 points for laggy image loading, 3 points for unresponsive filtering, and 3 points for abrupt category transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-personnel-excel-form-collection.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 406,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create an online personnel information collection form based on the Excel template. In the Excel sheet, items named as \"Table 1\", \"Table 2\"... are the forms that need to be collected. Items marked with an asterisk are required fields. Some questions with dropdown validation in Excel should also provide options in the collection form.\n\nThe online collection form is divided into [Server side] and [Form-filling side]. The [Server side] analyzes the uploaded Excel template to generate online collection form questions and creates a QR code for the online collection form. Employees scan the code with their phones to enter the [Form-filling side] to complete the form. After filling everything out, they click submit, and the information is automatically summarized on the [Server side]. The [Server side] displays \"* people have submitted\". After all personnel collection is completed, the [Server side] clicks to summarize and generate an Excel file containing all personnel information in the same format as the template. The [Server side] mobile phone enables a hotspot, and other people's mobile phones connect to the [Server side] phone's hotspot for network transmission. Generate this using HTML.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Excel template parsing function fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately parses Excel files through JavaScript libraries (such as SheetJS/xlsx), extracts form structures including 'Table 1', 'Table 2' naming patterns, identifies required fields marked with asterisks, and recognizes dropdown validation rules. Score 0 if template parsing is not implemented, 5 if only basic sheet reading is implemented, and 10 if all Excel features (required fields, dropdowns, table structures) are fully parsed and converted to form schema.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the QR code generation and mobile hotspot networking implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether QR code generation is implemented using libraries like qrcode.js to create scannable links for the collection form. Verify if the system provides clear instructions for mobile hotspot setup and local network communication. Deduct 5 points if QR codes don't contain proper form URLs, and 3 points if hotspot networking guidance is missing or unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the dual-interface system (Server side & Form-filling side) properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements distinct interfaces for server management and mobile form filling. Server side should display submission count, template upload, and summary generation. Form-filling side should be mobile-optimized with touch-friendly inputs. Deduct 5 points if interfaces aren't clearly separated, and 3 points if mobile responsiveness is poor. Check real-time submission counter updates. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data collection and Excel export workflow complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete data flow: form submission → server storage → real-time counter updates → final Excel generation matching original template format. Deduct 5 points if submitted data isn't properly stored or displayed, and 3 points if Excel export doesn't maintain original formatting. Verify that the summary function generates downloadable Excel files. Give 10 points if fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted Excel files, network interruption, invalid form data, duplicate submissions, 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. Progress visualization showing completion status 2. Form field validation with real-time feedback 3. Offline form caching for poor network conditions 4. Batch template processing). 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 Excel parsing libraries coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to form collection (e.g., built-in file manager) 3. Fancy effects that affect mobile performance (e.g., heavy animations on form pages). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating Excel parsing/form generation/data storage layers), error handling 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 no dependency management or build process is provided. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Mobile-first responsive design. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor mobile interface 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) Form input feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Page transitions controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for form fields 4) Touch-friendly button sizes (≥44px) for mobile. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy form interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-tap mobile interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/open-webui-visual-interface-knowledge-base.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1446,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Building an Open WebUI visual interface - knowledge base.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the knowledge base data model well-designed?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a proper data structure for the knowledge base, including entities, relationships, and attributes. Check if it supports hierarchical organization, tagging, and searching capabilities. Score 0 if no proper data model exists, 5 if basic structures are implemented but lacking advanced features, and 10 if the design includes comprehensive indexing, versioning, and taxonomy support.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the WebUI component architecture properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code follows modern component-based architecture (React/Vue/Web Components). Check for proper component hierarchy, state management, and props passing. Deduct 5 points if components are tightly coupled, 3 points if there's no separation of concerns, and 2 points if reusable components are not properly abstracted. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are proper API endpoints and data fetching mechanisms implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes RESTful or GraphQL API integration for knowledge base operations (CRUD). Evaluate if proper loading states, error handling, and caching mechanisms are implemented. Look for pagination or infinite scrolling for large datasets. Deduct 3 points for missing error handling, 3 points for no loading states, and 4 points for absence of data fetching optimization. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the search and filtering functionality comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements advanced search capabilities such as full-text search, autocomplete, filters, and faceted navigation. Check for search result highlighting and relevance ranking. Score 0 if search is not implemented, 5 if only basic keyword matching exists, and 10 if advanced search with multiple filtering options and real-time suggestions is available.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, empty search results, invalid inputs, 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 visualizations of knowledge relationships 2. AI-powered content recommendations 3. Customizable dashboard 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 search implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to knowledge management (e.g., a built-in game) 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 data/view/controller layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast 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": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/package-management-parcel-collection-point.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 545,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Please implement a food service menu file management system where chefs can upload new menu files (such as dish images and descriptions) through a front-end interface, and restaurant managers can review these menus. After approval, the menus will be displayed on the front-end for customers. The system should include menu category display functionality.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the front-end upload interface for chefs fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete and user-friendly file upload interface for chefs, including file selection, preview, form validation, and progress indication. Check if it handles multiple file types (images, PDFs), supports drag-and-drop functionality, and provides clear feedback on upload status. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic uploading exists but lacks validation or feedback, and 10 if the interface is comprehensive with all required features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the menu review system for managers properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the management interface that allows restaurant managers to review, approve, reject, or request changes to submitted menu items. Check if it includes notification mechanisms, review status tracking, and comment functionality. The system should display pending items clearly and provide sorting/filtering options. Deduct 5 points if approval workflows are incomplete, 3 points if notification systems are missing, and 2 points if there's no audit trail of decisions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the menu category display functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a well-structured category system for menu items (e.g., appetizers, main courses, desserts) with proper hierarchical organization. Check if it includes features like category filtering, sorting options, and responsive display across different screen sizes. Deduct 5 points if categories are fixed and not dynamically manageable, 3 points if category filtering is missing, and 4 points if the category display is not responsive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the customer-facing menu display interface properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the front-end interface that displays approved menus to customers. Check if it includes high-quality image rendering, proper information organization (prices, descriptions, ingredients, allergens), search functionality, and filtering options. The interface should be visually appealing and responsive. Deduct 3 points for missing search functionality, 4 points for poor image handling, and 5 points if the layout is not responsive. 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 file upload failures, server disconnections, unauthorized access attempts, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if input validation is thorough and if the system handles edge cases like large file uploads or concurrent modifications. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these scenarios, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered food photography enhancement 2. Automatic nutritional information calculation 3. Seasonal menu rotation system 4. Customer preference tracking for personalized recommendations). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload components with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to restaurant menu management (e.g., a built-in social networking feature) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down menu browsing). 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, API calls), code organization, error handling patterns, and build process automation. Examine if the system uses appropriate design patterns for state management and data flow. 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 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, with appropriate food-related color psychology) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography (menu items clearly hierarchical, descriptions readable). Deduct 3 points for cluttered menu layouts, 5 points for poor color combinations that don't complement food imagery, and 5 points for inconsistent typography across the application. 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) Menu loading and filtering response ≤ 300ms 2) Transition animations between menu sections controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indication of selected categories and items. Check if image loading is optimized (lazy loading, proper compression). Deduct 5 points for menu transitions that freeze the interface, 3 points for jarring animations when switching categories, and 5 points for slow image loading without placeholders. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}