@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/user-access-restriction-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1706,
-  "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 whenever possible. Set up user access restrictions, including IP range blacklists/whitelists, time range blacklists/whitelists, application name blacklists/whitelists, and hostname blacklists/whitelists.\n\nThe interface is divided into five sections:\nUser section: Displays the system's user list;\nTime range control: Lists time range controls for a selected user, with options to add, modify, and delete time range blacklists/whitelists;\nIP blacklist/whitelist control area: Lists IP blacklist/whitelist controls for a selected user, with options to add, modify, and delete IP blacklists/whitelists;\nApplication name blacklist/whitelist: Lists application name blacklist/whitelist controls for a selected user, with options to add, modify, and delete IP blacklists/whitelists;\nHostname blacklist/whitelist: Lists hostname blacklist/whitelist controls for a selected user, with options to add, modify, and delete IP blacklists/whitelists.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user section fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the user list display includes essential user information (username, status, last access time), proper pagination for large user counts, and search/filter functionality. Check if user selection triggers appropriate updates in all other sections. Score 0 if user listing is missing, 5 if basic display is implemented without filtering, and 10 if complete with search, sorting, and proper state management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the time range control section properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review if the time range control allows adding, modifying, and deleting time range blacklists/whitelists for selected users. Check for proper time validation (no overlapping ranges), timezone handling, recurrence options (daily, weekly, etc.), and visual representation of time ranges. Deduct 3 points if validation is missing, 3 points if timezone support is absent, and 3 points if the UI doesn't clearly visualize time conflicts. Full score for complete implementation is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the IP blacklist/whitelist control fully functional?",
-      "description": "Assess if the IP control section properly implements adding, modifying, and deleting IP blacklists/whitelists. Check for valid IP format validation (IPv4 and IPv6), CIDR notation support for subnet specification, bulk IP import functionality, and conflict detection between blacklist and whitelist entries. Deduct 3 points for missing IP validation, 3 points if CIDR notation isn't supported, and 3 points if conflict detection is absent. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are application name and hostname blacklist/whitelist sections properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if both application name and hostname control sections allow adding, modifying, and deleting entries with proper validation. Check for wildcard pattern support (e.g., *.domain.com), case-sensitivity options, proper escaping of special characters, and duplicate entry prevention. Deduct 3 points for each section if pattern validation is missing, 2 points if wildcard support is lacking, and 3 points if there's no conflict prevention between blacklists and whitelists. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, network errors, concurrent modifications by multiple admins, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code should validate all inputs before processing, handle API failures gracefully, and implement proper session management. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation only, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time conflict visualization between rules 2. Rule testing simulator to see which rules would apply to a specific access attempt 3. Rule statistics showing most frequently triggered rules 4. Bulk import/export of rules). 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 validation functions across different rule types 2. Function modules unrelated to access control (e.g., integrated chat systems) 3. Fancy visual effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating rule management logic/UI rendering/API layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper state management patterns and reusable components across rule types. 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). Check if the five distinct sections are clearly delineated yet visually cohesive. Deduct 3 points for each crowded section, 5 points for inconsistent styling across sections, and 5 points for chaotic rule presentation. 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 when switching between users or rule types. Evaluate if rule conflicts are highlighted in real-time and if rule changes propagate immediately across the interface. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for sluggish rule updates, and 5 points for confusing navigation between the five sections. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/user-login-window-program.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 713,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable when possible. Write a user login window program.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user interface for the login window properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code creates a clean, functional login interface with appropriate input fields (username/email, password), login button, and possibly a registration link or forgot password option. Score 0 if no UI is implemented, 5 if basic fields are present but poorly organized, and 10 if the interface is complete with proper layout and responsive design.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is input validation properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes client-side validation for user inputs (e.g., email format validation, password complexity requirements, empty field checks). Deduct 3 points for missing validation on critical fields, 5 points for no validation at all. The input fields should provide visual feedback on validation errors. Full score requires comprehensive validation with clear error messages.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the authentication mechanism secure and properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the authentication process follows security best practices: password hashing, secure storage, HTTPS support for API calls, and protection against common attacks (XSS, CSRF). Deduct 5 points if passwords are stored/transmitted in plain text, 3 points if no session management is implemented, and 3 points if there's no CSRF protection. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the login state management properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements proper login state management, including session/token handling, storage of authentication credentials, and proper logout functionality. Deduct 5 points if credentials are stored insecurely (e.g., in localStorage without encryption), 3 points if there's no session timeout handling, and 3 points if logout functionality is missing or incomplete.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, server timeouts, invalid credentials, 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. Social media login integration 2. Two-factor authentication 3. Biometric authentication options 4. Remember me functionality 5. Smart form completion). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to login (e.g., complex animations that distract) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy background animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/authentication layers), appropriate error handling, and maintainable code structure. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there are no comments or documentation for complex logic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for form elements. 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) Form submission feedback is immediate 3) Clear visual focus states for keyboard navigation 4) Smooth transitions between form states (e.g., error/success). Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points for keyboard inaccessibility. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/user-login-window-transition.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1062,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Write a user login window program where a successful login verification leads to a window transition.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user login form properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the login form has necessary fields (username/email and password), proper labels, and input validation. The form should prevent submission with empty fields and validate input formats (e.g., email pattern). Score 0 if form is missing, 5 if basic form exists without validation, 10 if complete with client-side validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the authentication logic correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the authentication process is properly coded with credential verification (even if mocked). Check for secure password handling (e.g., hashing if applicable). The authentication should return clear success/failure responses. Deduct 5 points if credentials are hardcoded, 3 points if there's no error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the window transition implemented and smooth?",
-      "description": "Verify that a successful login triggers a transition to a new window/screen. Assess if the transition uses proper animation (fade/slide) and follows UI/UX best practices. Score 0 if no transition exists, 5 if basic abrupt transition is implemented, 10 if the transition is smooth with appropriate visual feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is session management properly handled?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements session handling after successful login (e.g., tokens, cookies, localStorage). Evaluate if the session persists appropriately and includes timeout/expiry mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if no session management exists, 3 points if session security measures are 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 network errors, invalid input, login failures) and provide friendly error messages. Code with strong robustness should handle these edge cases effectively, 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. Remember me functionality 2. Password strength meter 3. Multi-factor authentication 4. Login history display). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to login (e.g., a built-in calculator) 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 UI/authentication logic), proper error handling, and maintainability. 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 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 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 transitions, and 5 points for hard-to-find login button. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/user-registration-login-profile-management.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 977,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable when possible. Help me develop details for regular user registration, login, user profile/personal center functionality.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user registration system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements complete registration logic including form validation (email format, password strength, username uniqueness), server-side verification, email confirmation mechanism, and duplicate account prevention. Score 0 if core registration flow is missing, 5 if only basic form submission is implemented, and 10 if all validation rules and security measures are fully included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the user authentication and login function properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the login system includes secure authentication (JWT/session management), password encryption (bcrypt/scrypt), remember me functionality, and account lockout protection after failed attempts. Two-way token validation between front-end and back-end is required. Deduct 5 points if password hashing is missing, and 3 points if session timeout is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the user profile management system designed with complete CRUD operations?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the profile system supports comprehensive user data management including avatar upload with image compression, personal information editing with real-time validation, privacy settings control, and data persistence. Check if profile picture preview and crop functionality is implemented. Deduct 5 points if file upload security is not addressed. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the personal center dashboard feature-complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes a comprehensive personal center with activity history, account settings, notification preferences, security settings (2FA, password change), and data export functionality. Deduct 5 points if user activity tracking is not implemented, and 3 points if account deletion/deactivation is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper navigation structure.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input, network failures, database connection issues, file upload 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 user experience (e.g., 1. Social login integration (Google/Facebook/GitHub) 2. Profile completion progress indicator 3. Advanced security features like login location tracking 4. Personalized dashboard widgets). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to user management (e.g., built-in games or unrelated widgets) 3. Excessive animations that affect performance (e.g., heavy particle effects on every interaction). 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/validation/API layers), input sanitization, SQL injection prevention, and secure coding practices. Deduct 5 points if sensitive data is exposed in client-side code or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if security best practices are ignored. 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) Consistent form styling and proper visual hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic form 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 validation feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Page transition animations controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear loading states and progress indicators 4) Intuitive navigation flow between registration/login/profile pages. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/user-registration-login-system-html-css-nodejs-mariadb.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1215,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate can be executed and displayed. User registration and login system using HTML/CSS/Node.js/MariaDB.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user registration form properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the registration form includes essential fields (username, email, password, confirm password), client-side validation (input format, password strength), and clear error messages. Form should prevent submission with invalid data. Score 0 if basic form elements are missing, 5 if validation is incomplete, and 10 if all validations with proper UX feedback are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the login system securely implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the login system implements security best practices: password hashing (using bcrypt or similar), CSRF protection, rate limiting for failed attempts, and secure session management. Deduct 5 points if passwords are stored in plaintext, 3 points if there's no protection against brute force attacks, and 3 points if sessions are improperly managed. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the database connection and query handling properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the MariaDB connection setup, prepared statements usage to prevent SQL injection, proper error handling, and connection pooling for performance. Check if database operations are properly isolated in a data access layer. Deduct 5 points if SQL injection vulnerabilities exist, 3 points for improper error handling, and 3 points for lack of connection management. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the Node.js server architecture well-structured?",
-      "description": "Examine if the Node.js application follows proper MVC or similar architecture, uses middleware effectively (for authentication, logging, error handling), implements RESTful API patterns, and has proper route organization. Deduct 5 points for monolithic code without separation of concerns, 3 points for improper error handling, and 3 points for lack of middleware usage. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, database connection errors, authentication failures) 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. Two-factor authentication 2. Social login integration 3. Password recovery system 4. Remember me functionality). 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 logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to user authentication (e.g., unnecessary analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations on login page). 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 routes/controllers/models), unit test coverage, error logging, 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 environment variables are not properly used for configuration. 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) Form submission feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Success/error notification duration controlled between 3-5 seconds 3) Clear visual focus guidance for form fields. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between login and registration views, and 5 points for hard-to-find password recovery or form submission buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/vc-mfc-ceramic-tile-defect-detection-software.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 383,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure the generated code is executable and demonstrable. Using VC++ MFC 2022, develop a software for ceramic tile surface defect detection that automatically captures tile images using an industrial camera, then performs inference using a YOLOv model to produce results. Please help me design this project, including the interface and functionality, as well as user operations in specific detail. Also, provide the software code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the industrial camera integration and image acquisition system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements industrial camera SDK integration (such as Basler, FLIR, or Hikvision camera APIs) through MFC framework, including camera initialization, parameter configuration (exposure, gain, frame rate), real-time image capture, and buffer management. Check if the system supports multiple camera brands and provides camera status monitoring. Score 0 if camera integration is not implemented, 5 if only basic capture is implemented without parameter control, and 10 if full camera control with error handling is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the YOLOv model inference engine properly integrated and optimized?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the YOLO model integration uses appropriate inference frameworks (ONNX Runtime, TensorRT, or OpenCV DNN) with proper preprocessing (image normalization, resizing) and postprocessing (NMS, confidence filtering). Check if the system supports model switching, batch processing, and GPU acceleration. Deduct 5 points if inference time exceeds 500ms per image, 3 points if confidence threshold is not configurable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the defect detection results processing and visualization system comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check whether the detection results include proper bounding box rendering, defect classification labels, confidence scores, and defect statistics. Evaluate if the system provides result export functionality (XML/JSON/CSV formats), defect image cropping, and historical result database storage. Deduct 5 points if detection results are not properly visualized, 3 points if export functionality is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the complete workflow automation and quality control system implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the software includes automated workflow management such as continuous monitoring mode, batch processing capabilities, quality control thresholds, alarm mechanisms for defective tiles, and production line integration interfaces. Check if the system provides calibration tools, ROI selection, and inspection parameter adjustment. Deduct 5 points if automation workflow is not implemented, 3 points if quality control features are missing. 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 camera disconnection, model loading failure, memory overflow, invalid image formats, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include proper exception handling, resource cleanup, and graceful degradation. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if partially handled, and 0 points if no exception handling is present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that enhance industrial usability?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes advanced features that improve industrial application value (e.g., 1. Real-time defect trend analysis and reporting 2. Multi-spectral imaging support 3. AI-assisted defect severity grading 4. Production line speed optimization 5. Remote monitoring capabilities). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple image processing pipelines) 2. Function modules unrelated to defect detection (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Resource-intensive effects that impact real-time performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during detection). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core detection functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separating camera control/image processing/AI inference/UI layers), proper MFC architecture usage, memory management, and thread safety. Deduct 5 points if memory leaks are found or improper resource management; deduct 5 points if the code lacks proper class hierarchy design; deduct 5 points if threading is not properly implemented for real-time processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet industrial software standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the MFC interface follows industrial software design principles: 1) Professional color scheme suitable for factory environments (high contrast, easy readability) 2) Logical layout with clear functional grouping 3) Industrial-standard fonts and sizing (minimum 12px for readability in industrial settings) 4) Proper status indicators and progress feedback. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered interface element, 5 points for poor color contrast affecting readability, and 5 points for non-intuitive control placement. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the real-time performance and user interaction optimized for industrial use?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the software meets industrial real-time requirements: 1) Image capture and display refresh rate ≥ 10 FPS 2) Detection result display latency ≤ 200ms 3) Clear visual indicators for system status and operation feedback 4) Keyboard shortcuts for frequent operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for laggy real-time display, and 5 points for missing critical status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/vehicle-management-system-vue-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1591,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and expert responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable for demonstration purposes. For a vehicle management system with functionalities like license plate recognition, parking fee management, and vehicle entry/exit table display, as a front-end engineer who only knows Vue, how should I write the code?",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the license plate recognition system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements license plate recognition functionality through Vue.js, including image upload/capture interface, OCR integration or simulation, and real-time recognition feedback. Check if it handles various license plate formats (different regions/countries) and provides confidence scoring. Score 0 if no recognition logic is implemented, 5 if only basic image upload is provided, and 10 if complete recognition with validation and error handling is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the parking fee management system comprehensively designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the Vue implementation includes complete fee calculation logic with configurable rate structures (hourly/daily/monthly), automatic time tracking from entry to exit, discount/promotion handling, and payment integration or simulation. Check for proper data validation and fee adjustment capabilities. Deduct 5 points if time calculation is inaccurate, 3 points if no payment workflow is provided. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the vehicle entry/exit table display properly implemented with real-time updates?",
-      "description": "Check whether the Vue components provide comprehensive vehicle tracking with sortable/filterable tables, real-time status updates, search functionality by license plate/time/status, and proper pagination for large datasets. Evaluate if the data structure supports CRUD operations and maintains state consistency. Deduct 5 points if table performance degrades with >100 records, 3 points if search/filter functions are missing. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the complete vehicle management workflow integrated?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code provides end-to-end workflow integration from vehicle entry (license plate scan) → parking space assignment → fee calculation → exit processing → receipt generation. Check for proper state management using Vuex/Pinia, component communication, and data persistence simulation. Deduct 5 points if workflow breaks between modules, 3 points if state management is inconsistent. Give 10 points if fully integrated with proper error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid license plates, network failures, concurrent operations, invalid time ranges, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases like duplicate entries, system crashes, and data corruption. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average robustness, and 0 points if no exception handling.",
-      "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 vehicle management experience (e.g., 1. Real-time parking space availability visualization 2. Automated notification system for overstay 3. Analytics dashboard with usage patterns 4. Mobile-responsive design with QR code integration). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple fee calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to vehicle management (e.g., built-in weather widget) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations on table updates). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core vehicle management functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review Vue.js best practices including proper component composition, composables usage, TypeScript integration, and build process optimization. Check for proper separation of concerns (components/services/stores), code reusability, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or Vue patterns are misused; deduct 5 points if component coupling is too high; deduct 5 points if no build optimization is implemented. 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) Consistent iconography for vehicle management actions. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for glaring color combinations, and 5 points for chaotic data table layouts. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Form submission feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Table loading/filtering transition animations controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for license plate input and fee calculations 4) Smooth real-time updates without jarring refreshes. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual glitches during data updates, and 5 points for hard-to-find critical management functions. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/vehicle-personnel-management-with-reminders.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 817,
-  "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 and demonstrable. Create a website for organizing vehicle and personnel information that provides reminders when information expires and includes search functionality.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the data model properly designed for vehicle and personnel information management?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the data structures include essential fields for vehicles (registration, insurance, inspection dates) and personnel (license validity, medical certifications, training records). Check if expiration dates are properly typed as Date objects for comparison operations. Score 0 if basic data structures are missing, 5 if only basic properties exist without validation, and 10 if the model is comprehensive with proper typing and validation rules.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the expiration reminder system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of the reminder system, checking if it includes configurable thresholds (30/60/90 day warnings), multiple notification methods (UI indicators, email alerts, etc.), and priority levels based on expiration proximity. Deduct 5 points if only basic date comparison is implemented without configurable thresholds, deduct 3 points if multiple notification methods are missing. Full score requires a complete notification lifecycle with dismissal and snooze functionality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the search functionality comprehensive and efficient?",
-      "description": "Assess the search implementation for features like real-time filtering, advanced search criteria (multi-field, range queries for dates), and search result sorting/grouping. Check if the search algorithm uses efficient indexing techniques for large datasets. Score 0 if only basic string matching exists, 5 if there's functional but limited search, and 10 if advanced search with optimized performance is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a reporting system for tracking expiration metrics?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the system includes analytical reporting features showing expiration trends, compliance rates, and upcoming renewal workloads. Check for visual representations (charts/graphs) and data export options. Deduct 5 points if only basic lists are provided without aggregation, deduct 3 points if visual representations are missing. Full score requires comprehensive analytics with interactive visualizations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (invalid date inputs, search with no results, concurrent user updates, 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. Visual timeline of upcoming expirations 2. Automated document renewal workflow 3. Integration with vehicle/personnel identity verification services). 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 vehicle/personnel information management 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations on critical pages). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data access/business logic/presentation layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}