@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/html-cake-player-happy-birthday-song-waveform-visualization.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 430,
-  "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. Use HTML to create a cake player that can play the Happy Birthday song with waveform visualization.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the cake-themed audio player visually implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the HTML includes an actual visual representation of a cake (not just a plain audio player). The cake should have appropriate styling with CSS to look like a birthday cake (with layers, frosting, candles, etc.). Score 0 if there's no cake visualization, 5 if there's a basic cake design, and 10 if the cake is detailed and visually appealing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Happy Birthday song playback functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that the player can actually play the Happy Birthday song. Check if the code includes the audio file or generates the notes programmatically. The player must have basic controls (play/pause at minimum). Deduct 5 points if the song is incomplete, 3 points if the audio controls are missing, and 5 points if there are no error handlers for audio loading issues.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the waveform visualization accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the code properly implements audio visualization using Web Audio API (AudioContext, AnalyserNode) and either Canvas or SVG to draw the waveform. The visualization should synchronize with the actual audio playback. Give 0 points if visualization is missing, 5 points if basic visualization exists but isn't synchronized well, and 10 points if the waveform accurately represents the audio in real-time.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are there interactive elements incorporated into the cake player?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes interactive elements like clickable candles that affect the music, draggable audio controls on the cake, or animations that respond to user interaction. Deduct 5 points if there's no interaction beyond basic play/pause, and 3 points if the interactions aren't intuitive or cake-themed.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser incompatibilities, audio loading errors, user interruptions, 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. Candles that light up with the beat 2. Responsive cake that changes with music intensity 3. Visual effects synchronized to specific birthday song phrases). 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 visualization methods 2. Function modules unrelated to the cake player or birthday theme 3. Fancy effects that affect audio performance or visualization clarity. 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 audio processing/visualization/UI components), code reusability, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no performance consideration for the visualization (e.g., excessive DOM updates). 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 suitable for a birthday theme (festive but not garish) 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 cake-to-control layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the waveform animation and cake interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Audio response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth visualization with no frame drops at 60fps 3) Clear visual feedback when interacting with the cake elements. Deduct 5 points for jerky waveform animation, 3 points for delayed audio response, and 5 points for confusing interaction feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/in-browser-multi-track-recording-studio.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 580,
-  "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 when possible. Implement an in-browser recording studio that supports multi-track recording (at least 3 tracks). Each track should provide real-time monitoring during recording, include a metronome function (with adjustable BPM and time signature), allow waveform alignment editing after recording, and support exporting individual track files.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the multi-track recording functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements Web Audio API with MediaRecorder to handle at least 3 simultaneous recording tracks. Check if each track has independent recording controls (record/stop/pause), proper audio input selection, and correct audio buffering. Score 0 if multi-track recording is not implemented, 5 if only basic recording works but tracks interfere with each other, and 10 if all tracks can be independently recorded with proper isolation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is real-time monitoring implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of real-time audio monitoring during recording. Check for proper audio routing using AudioNodes, minimal latency (under 50ms), and volume control for monitoring. Verify that the monitoring doesn't create feedback loops and can be toggled on/off per track. Deduct 5 points if monitoring has noticeable delays, 3 points if volume control is missing, and 5 points if monitoring creates audio artifacts.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the metronome function complete and accurate?",
-      "description": "Check if the metronome uses proper timing mechanisms (like AudioContext.currentTime for precision) instead of setTimeout/setInterval. Verify that BPM adjustment (range at least 40-240) works correctly and time signature changes (at least 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 6/8) are properly implemented with accent beats. Deduct 5 points if timing drifts after 60 seconds, 3 points if time signatures are limited, and 5 points if visual metronome indication is missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the waveform visualization and editing functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the waveform rendering using Canvas/WebGL (not just static images), zoom functionality, and alignment editing capabilities. Verify that recorded tracks can be moved in time relative to each other with millisecond precision, and that the visualization updates in real-time. Deduct 5 points if waveforms aren't interactive, 3 points if zoom functionality is missing, and 5 points if alignment editing doesn't maintain audio quality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as microphone permission denials, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations when recording long sessions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle browser audio API differences between Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
-      "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 audio effects processing 2. Automatic silence detection/trimming 3. Beat detection for auto-alignment 4. Keyboard shortcuts for common operations). 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 audio processing functions 2. Function modules unrelated to audio recording (e.g., a built-in video player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that consume CPU needed for audio processing). 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 audio processing/UI/storage layers), unit test coverage for critical audio functions, and proper memory management for audio buffers. Deduct 5 points if global audio context pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if audio processing creates memory leaks when recording long sessions; deduct 5 points if the code doesn't handle browser-specific audio implementations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional recording studio standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional DAW principles: 1) Clear track separation with visual color coding 2) Proper signal level meters with peak indicators 3) Professional timeline with proper time markings (bars/beats and time). Deduct 3 points for each missing standard control (mute/solo buttons), 5 points for unintuitive track layouts, and 5 points for unclear recording status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the export functionality complete and professional?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the export function supports standard audio formats (WAV at minimum, ideally MP3, OGG too), allows individual track exports as well as mixed output, and provides file naming and metadata options. Verify that exported files maintain original audio quality. Deduct 5 points if only one export format is supported, 3 points if individual track export is missing, and 5 points if the export process blocks the UI thread or doesn't show progress. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/karaoke-lyrics-synchronization-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 642,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create a Karaoke lyrics synchronization tool where users can upload audio files and LRC lyrics files to achieve synchronized display of lyrics with the audio timeline (with word-by-word highlighting). The tool should support adjusting lyrics timing offset and exporting the modified LRC files.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload and audio playback functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements file uploading for both audio and LRC files with proper MIME type validation. Check if the audio player includes essential controls (play, pause, seek) and event listeners. Score 0 if file upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload without validation exists, and 10 if complete with error handling and format support for multiple audio formats (MP3, WAV, OGG).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the LRC file parsing and timeline synchronization accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly parses LRC file format (both standard timestamps and enhanced format with word timing). Verify that the synchronization mechanism matches lyrics to the current audio timestamp with precision (should be within 50ms accuracy). Deduct 5 points if only line-level synchronization is implemented, not word-level highlighting. Deduct 3 points if the parser doesn't handle special formats or extended LRC tags.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the lyrics timing offset adjustment feature properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the tool provides an interface for users to adjust the timing offset of lyrics (both globally and for specific lines if needed). Evaluate whether the offset changes are applied in real-time to the displayed lyrics without requiring a page reload. Deduct 5 points if only global offset is available without fine-tuning capabilities, and 3 points if adjustments don't show immediate visual feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the modified LRC file export functionality working correctly?",
-      "description": "Verify that users can export the adjusted LRC file with all timing modifications properly saved. Check if the exported file maintains the original format while incorporating the timing changes. The export should include a download option with the proper file extension and MIME type. Deduct 5 points if the export doesn't preserve all metadata from the original LRC file, and 3 points if the download mechanism isn't user-friendly.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as malformed LRC files, audio format incompatibility, browser API limitations, 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. Waveform visualization of audio 2. Auto-scrolling with smooth animation 3. Multiple theme options for lyrics display 4. Batch processing of multiple files). 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 timing calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to lyrics synchronization (e.g., a built-in music equalizer) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations for lyrics transitions). 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 audio handling/lyrics processing/UI components), 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 (lyrics font size ≥ 16px, 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) Current lyric highlighting transition ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth scrolling animation for lyrics advancement 3) Clear visual indication of active line and upcoming lyrics. Deduct 5 points for jerky lyrics transitions, 3 points for lagging synchronization between audio and lyrics, and 5 points for unintuitive UI controls for timing adjustment. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/music-generation-tool-with-free-ai-inference.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1133,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable whenever possible. Provide runnable code for implementing this music generation tool, using freely available tools for the AI inference part.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the music generation AI system architecture properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes a well-structured system architecture that integrates AI models for music generation. Check if the architecture includes data preprocessing, model loading, inference pipeline, and output processing components. Score 0 if no AI architecture is present, 5 if basic components exist but lack integration, and 10 if the architecture is comprehensive with clear data flow between components.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the AI model integration with freely available tools properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code correctly integrates with freely available AI music generation libraries/tools (e.g., Magenta, DDSP, AudioCraft, etc.). Verify API usage correctness, proper error handling for API calls, and appropriate model parameter management. Deduct 5 points if integration is superficial without proper error handling, and 3 points if parameter tuning options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are music generation parameters and controls fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code provides comprehensive controls for music generation parameters (tempo, key, style, instruments, length, etc.). Check if these parameters have appropriate validation and reasonable defaults. Deduct 3 points for each major missing control (tempo/key/style), and 2 points if parameter bounds checking is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio processing and output functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Examine the audio processing pipeline, including audio format conversion, mixing, playback mechanisms, and export functionality (MIDI, WAV, MP3). Check if the code handles different sample rates and bit depths correctly. Deduct 3 points for missing export formats, 5 points for inadequate audio playback, and 5 points if audio processing has potential memory leaks or performance issues. 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 model loading failures, memory constraints, malformed input parameters, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time visualization of music generation 2. Style transfer between music pieces 3. Interactive parameter adjustment during generation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple audio conversion pipelines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to music generation (e.g., unnecessary image processing) 3. Resource-intensive features that affect performance (e.g., excessive logging, unnecessary real-time processing). 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 AI inference/audio processing/UI 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 feedback during lengthy generation processes. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for UI freezing during model inference, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/network-audio-sampler-drum-kit.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 475,
-  "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 for demonstration. Develop a network audio sampler that supports loading multiple drum kit sound samples (in WAV format), triggering playback through a virtual MIDI keyboard or computer keyboard, with adjustable volume, pan, and playback rate for each sample.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio sample loading and management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements WAV file loading through Web Audio API, includes proper audio buffer management, and supports multiple drum kit samples with preloading mechanisms. Check if sample metadata (duration, sample rate, channels) is correctly parsed and displayed. Score 0 if basic audio loading fails, 5 if only single sample loading works, and 10 if multiple drum kits with batch loading and error handling are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the dual input system (virtual MIDI keyboard + computer keyboard) properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether both virtual MIDI keyboard interface and computer keyboard mapping are functional with proper event handling. Check for MIDI device detection, key velocity sensitivity, and keyboard layout mapping (QWERTY to drum pads). Deduct 5 points if MIDI input is missing, 3 points if keyboard events have conflicts or delays. Virtual keyboard should provide visual feedback on key press. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the real-time audio parameter controls (volume, pan, playback rate) accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether each sample has independent volume control (0-100%), stereo panning (-100% to +100%), and playback rate adjustment (0.5x to 2.0x) with real-time audio processing. Verify that parameter changes are reflected immediately without audio glitches. Deduct 5 points if any parameter control is missing, 3 points if audio artifacts occur during parameter changes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio engine architecture and performance optimization properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the Web Audio API implementation uses proper audio context management, buffer pooling for simultaneous playback, and low-latency audio processing. Check for polyphonic playback support (multiple samples playing simultaneously) and proper audio node connections. Deduct 5 points if audio latency exceeds 50ms, 3 points if polyphonic playback causes performance issues, 5 points if audio context is not properly managed. 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 unsupported audio formats, MIDI device disconnection, audio context suspension, file loading failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time waveform visualization 2. Recording and export functionality 3. Built-in metronome with tempo sync 4. Sample reverse/loop modes 5. Audio effects like reverb/delay). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple audio loading methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio sampling (e.g., built-in video player) 3. Fancy effects that affect audio performance (e.g., heavy 3D visualizations blocking audio thread). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core audio functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio engine/UI/MIDI layers), proper error handling, and build process organization. Deduct 5 points if global audio context pollution is found or audio processing patterns are not properly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if audio resources are not properly cleaned up. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional audio software design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional audio software principles: 1) Clear visual hierarchy for mixer-style controls 2) Consistent knob/fader designs with proper scaling 3) High contrast for better studio visibility (dark theme preferred) 4) Drum pad layout following standard drum kit positioning. Deduct 3 points for each unclear control element, 5 points for unprofessional color schemes, and 5 points for confusing control layouts. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the audio-visual feedback smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactive feedback meets professional audio standards: 1) Visual trigger response ≤ 20ms for drum pad hits 2) Audio latency ≤ 50ms from input to output 3) Smooth parameter control updates without visual stuttering 4) Clear visual indicators for active samples and parameter states. Deduct 5 points for each delayed audio response, 3 points for laggy visual feedback, and 5 points for unclear audio status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/online-audio-concatenation-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 592,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable and demonstrable. Design an online audio concatenation tool that supports uploading multiple audio clips, allows users to freely adjust the order of audio concatenation in the interface, and export the synthesized audio.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "1. Is the audio upload and format handling system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements multi-file audio upload through HTML5 File API, and whether it includes support for common audio formats (MP3, WAV, AAC, OGG). Check if audio format validation, file size limits, and format conversion capabilities are included. Score 0 if core upload functionality is not implemented, 5 if only basic single-file upload is supported, and 10 if multi-format batch upload with validation is fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "2. Is the audio concatenation engine and processing logic implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the Web Audio API or similar technology is properly implemented for audio concatenation, including audio buffer management, seamless audio stitching, and real-time preview capabilities. Evaluate if the concatenation maintains audio quality without distortion. Deduct 5 points if audio gaps or clicks are present during concatenation, and 3 points if real-time preview is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "3. Is the drag-and-drop interface for audio sequence management designed and functional?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the interface provides intuitive drag-and-drop functionality for reordering audio clips, including visual feedback during dragging, drop zone indicators, and smooth animation transitions. Check if the interface displays audio waveforms, duration, and file names clearly. Deduct 5 points if drag-and-drop is non-functional or clunky, and 3 points if visual feedback is poor. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "4. Is the audio export and download functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete audio export capabilities with multiple format options (MP3, WAV), quality settings, and proper file naming. Evaluate if the export process includes progress indicators and handles large file exports efficiently. Deduct 5 points if export functionality is missing or limited to one format, and 3 points if no progress feedback is provided during export. Give 10 points if fully implemented with multiple format support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "5. Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, unsupported formats, memory limitations, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle file size limits, audio processing errors, and graceful degradation. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic error handling, and 0 points if no exceptions are handled.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "6. 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 waveform visualization during editing 2. Audio fade-in/fade-out effects between clips 3. Batch processing with templates 4. Audio normalization and volume adjustment 5. Keyboard shortcuts for power users). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "7. Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple upload handlers coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio processing (e.g., built-in video editor) 3. Heavy effects that impact audio processing performance (e.g., complex 3D visualizations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core audio functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "8. Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing/UI/file handling layers), error handling patterns, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper separation of concerns is missing; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if no proper audio cleanup/disposal is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "9. Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching suitable for audio editing (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear audio track separation 3) Professional typography with readable labels and controls 4) Intuitive iconography for audio functions. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor color contrast affecting usability, and 5 points for confusing layout of audio controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "10. Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to audio editing workflow expectations: 1) Drag-and-drop response time ≤ 100ms 2) Audio preview starts within 200ms of user action 3) Smooth waveform rendering without stuttering 4) Clear visual feedback for all audio operations 5) Responsive progress indicators during processing. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for delayed audio feedback, and 5 points for unresponsive UI during audio processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/online-audio-loop-editing-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 502,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional replies. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. ======== Role ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple, easy-to-understand comments. Don't output anything else.\n\n======== Output Rules ========\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Before final output, carefully review and check all code to evaluate its executability. If the code cannot run or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data\n\n======== Project Requirements ========\nImplement an online audio loop editing tool where users can upload audio files, select start and end points, set the selected portion as a loop segment, and export it as a new file.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements a complete audio file upload mechanism including: file type validation (must support at least MP3, WAV, OGG formats), file size limitations with appropriate user feedback, and proper error handling for upload failures. Examine if the uploaded files are properly stored (either temporarily or persistently) and if the interface provides clear visual feedback during the upload process.0 points if upload functionality is missing, 5 points if basic upload exists but lacks validation or feedback, 10 points if upload functionality is complete with all necessary validations and user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the audio playback and visualization system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a functional audio player component with standard controls (play/pause, volume) and a waveform visualization that accurately represents the uploaded audio. The waveform should be properly scaled and render correctly for different audio durations. Check if the playback position is visually indicated on the waveform and if the system handles different audio formats consistently.0 points if playback or visualization is missing, 5 points if basic playback exists but visualization is inadequate, 10 points for complete implementation with responsive waveform visualization that accurately represents the audio data.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the loop selection functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether users can intuitively select start and end points for loops either through visual markers on the waveform or through timestamp inputs. Check if the selection mechanism includes features like draggable handles, snap-to-beat functionality, or precise time input fields. Verify that the selected loop region is visually highlighted and that the system prevents invalid selections (end before start).0 points if loop selection is missing, 5 points if basic selection exists but lacks precision controls, 10 points for comprehensive selection tools with multiple input methods and validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the loop playback and export functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the system can properly play the selected loop segment repeatedly with smooth transitions between iterations. Check if the export functionality allows users to save the loop as a new audio file in common formats (MP3, WAV). Verify if export options like quality settings, fade in/out options, or normalization are available and if the system provides progress feedback during export processing.0 points if loop playback or export is missing, 5 points if basic functionality exists but lacks options or smooth transitions, 10 points for seamless loop playback and comprehensive export options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, browser compatibility issues, memory constraints with large files) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if the application implements proper exception handling for audio processing operations and if it degrades gracefully when features are unsupported.0 points if no exception handling exists, 5 points if basic error handling is implemented but lacks comprehensive coverage, 10 points if robust error handling with user-friendly recovery mechanisms is provided throughout.",
-      "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. Beat detection for automatic loop suggestions 2. Audio effects library for loop processing 3. Loop library management system 4. Keyboard shortcuts for precise editing). Consider both technical innovation and user experience improvements.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 audio processing functions 2. Function modules unrelated to audio loop editing (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Excessive visual effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations that slow down the audio processing). Evaluate if the core functionality is obscured by unnecessary features.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 audio processing logic/UI components/file management), appropriate use of design patterns for audio handling, and code organization. Check for proper handling of memory-intensive audio operations, browser performance considerations, and adherence to web audio best practices.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 audio processing is inefficient or causes browser performance issues. 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 audio tool design principles: 1) Intuitive waveform visualization with clear color contrast 2) Proper layout of controls with logical grouping of related functions 3) Professional typography system with adequate contrast for readability. Check if the interface resembles industry-standard audio editing tools in terms of usability.Deduct 3 points for each poorly designed UI element, 5 points for confusing audio visualization, and 5 points for unintuitive control placement. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the audio editing interactions conform to expected behavior: 1) Real-time audio playback response when adjusting parameters 2) Smooth waveform zooming and scrolling 3) Responsive selection markers with appropriate visual feedback. Check if there are any audio glitches during playback or processing operations.Deduct 5 points for any audio playback delays exceeding 200ms, 3 points for jerky waveform navigation, and 5 points for unresponsive selection tools. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/python-kivy-streaming-media-player.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 945,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Using Python and the Kivy framework, write a streaming media player.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the media playback core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements media file loading, playback control (play/pause/stop), seek functionality, and volume control through Python/Kivy. Must include support for common media formats (MP4, MP3, AVI, etc.) and proper error handling for unsupported formats. Score 0 if core playback is not implemented, 5 if only basic play/pause works, and 10 if all standard media controls are fully functional with format validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the streaming media handling properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes proper streaming protocols (HTTP, RTSP, HLS) support, buffering mechanisms, and adaptive bitrate handling. Must handle network interruptions gracefully with buffer status indicators. Deduct 5 points if no buffering strategy is implemented, 3 points if stream reconnection fails, and 5 points if no adaptive quality control exists. Full score requires seamless streaming with buffer management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the playlist and queue management system designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the player includes playlist creation, file queue management, shuffle/repeat modes, and next/previous track navigation. Should support drag-and-drop reordering and persistent playlist storage. Deduct 5 points if no playlist functionality exists, 3 points if queue operations are buggy, and 2 points if no persistence mechanism is provided. Full implementation requires complete playlist ecosystem.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are media metadata and visualization features constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes media metadata extraction (title, artist, duration, thumbnails), progress bar with timestamp display, and audio visualization elements. Must show current playback position with seekable timeline. Deduct 5 points if no metadata display exists, 3 points if progress tracking is inaccurate, and 2 points if no visual feedback for media information is provided. Full score requires rich media information display.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted media files, network timeouts, unsupported codecs, file permission errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time audio spectrum analyzer 2. Custom equalizer with presets 3. Picture-in-picture mode 4. Subtitle support with multiple languages 5. Casting/AirPlay 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 volume control mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to media playback (e.g., built-in games or calculators) 3. Performance-heavy effects that don't add value (e.g., excessive animations during video playback). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core media 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 media engine/UI/network layers), proper Kivy widget usage, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or MVC pattern is not followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if Kivy best practices are ignored (improper widget lifecycle management). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional media player design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern media player principles: 1) Dark theme compatibility for video viewing 2) Intuitive control layout with proper spacing (minimum 44px touch targets) 3) Clear visual hierarchy for media information display 4) Responsive design for different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each poorly positioned control element, 5 points for illegible text on video backgrounds, and 5 points for cluttered interface layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the media control interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the media controls provide immediate feedback: 1) Play/pause response ≤ 200ms 2) Seek operations reflect immediately in timeline 3) Volume changes provide audio feedback 4) Loading states are clearly indicated 5) Touch gestures work smoothly. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive control, 3 points for laggy seek operations, and 5 points for missing loading indicators during buffering. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}