@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/frontend-image-editing-with-history-revert.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1617,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Front-end image editing features including cutting, doodling, etc., with memory capability to revert to previous steps.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core image editing functionality correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements essential image editing features (cutting, cropping, resizing, rotation) through Canvas/WebGL APIs. Check if the implementation handles proper aspect ratio maintenance, anti-aliasing for smooth edges, and correct pixel manipulation. Score 0 if no editing functions work, 5 if basic operations are buggy, and 10 if all operations produce professional-quality results.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the doodling/drawing system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the drawing system includes multiple brush types, line smoothing algorithms, pressure sensitivity (if applicable), and proper rendering techniques. Check for stroke interpolation to ensure smooth curves even with fast mouse movements. Deduct 3 points if only basic drawing is implemented, 3 points if line quality is jagged, and 3 points if brush customization is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the undo/redo memory stack functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code implements a proper state management system with command pattern or similar architecture to track editing history. Check if the memory management efficiently handles large images (using differential snapshots rather than full copies). Deduct 5 points if the history is limited to fewer than 10 steps, 3 points if large images cause performance issues, and 5 points if redo functionality is missing after undo. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are image manipulation filters and adjustments implemented?",
-      "description": "Check for implementation of common adjustments (brightness, contrast, saturation, etc.) and filters (blur, sharpen, etc.). Verify if the preview system allows real-time feedback before applying effects. Deduct 3 points if adjustments lack preview capability, 3 points if filters are implemented inefficiently causing lag, and 5 points if histogram visualization is missing for precise adjustments. 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 oversized images, unsupported formats, out-of-memory conditions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper validation before operations and graceful degradation on errors. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted selection tools 2. Non-destructive editing layers 3. Advanced content-aware fill 4. Custom filter creation). 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 crop tools with identical functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to image editing (e.g., built-in games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when switching tools). 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 core editing logic/rendering/UI layers), unit test coverage, and build process optimization. Check for proper separation of concerns and appropriate design patterns. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not optimized for performance. 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 professional image editor conventions: 1) Logical tool grouping and accessibility 2) Proper layout with adequate workspace emphasis 3) Non-intrusive UI that maximizes canvas visibility. Deduct 3 points for cluttered toolbars, 5 points for inconsistent icon design, and 5 points for poor contrast that affects usability. Check if the interface resembles industry standards like Photoshop or GIMP. 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 professional editing software standards: 1) Responsive brush strokes with no visible lag (≤ 16ms delay) 2) Smooth zoom/pan operations with proper interpolation 3) Appropriate visual feedback for selection and transformation operations. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag when drawing, 3 points for jarring transitions between edit states, and 5 points for cursor feedback that doesn't match the active tool. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/gif-player-with-scroll-and-multiple-gifs.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1001,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for display. I need a player that can scroll through and play multiple GIFs.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the GIF player's core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements loading, displaying, and scrolling through multiple GIFs. Check if it handles different GIF formats properly and maintains timing for animated GIFs. Score 0 if the core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic display is implemented without scrolling, and 10 if both display and navigation between multiple GIFs work correctly.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the playback control system robust and complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of play, pause, stop, and navigation controls between multiple GIFs. Check if the player properly maintains the playback state of each GIF when switching between them. Deduct 3 points if play/pause functionality is buggy, 3 points if navigation controls are missing or incomplete, and 4 points if the current playback state is not preserved when switching between GIFs.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the solution handle GIF loading and optimization properly?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements proper preloading mechanisms for smooth transition between GIFs, lazy loading for better performance, and error handling for failed loads. Assess if it manages memory efficiently when dealing with multiple GIFs. Deduct 3 points for missing preloading, 3 points for excessive memory usage, and 4 points for poor error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a responsive design for different screen sizes?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the GIF player is responsive across different devices and screen sizes. Check if it properly scales GIFs without breaking aspect ratios, and if the controls remain accessible and usable on mobile devices. Deduct 5 points if the layout breaks on mobile devices, 3 points if controls become unusable at certain screen sizes, and 2 points if GIFs don't scale properly.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted GIFs, varying GIF sizes, network interruption during loading, 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. GIF speed control 2. Frame-by-frame navigation 3. Thumbnail previews of all GIFs 4. Filter or effect application to GIFs). 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 scrolling mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to GIF playback (e.g., unnecessary audio players) 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 GIF loading/playback/UI components), code reusability, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimizations are implemented for handling multiple large GIFs. 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) Clean and intuitive controls that don't obstruct GIF viewing. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poorly positioned controls that interfere with content. 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) Smooth transitions between GIFs with animation duration between 300-500ms 2) Responsive controls with click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 3) Clear visual indication of current GIF in the sequence. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky transitions between GIFs, and 5 points for unclear navigation elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/hbuilder-simple-drawing-app.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1535,
-  "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. Please create a simple drawing app using HBuilder, with complete, runnable code for browsers. Provide step-by-step instructions on how to create it, how to import it, and how to package it.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the drawing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code provides core drawing capabilities: free-hand drawing, shape creation (at least rectangles, circles, and lines), color selection, and brush size adjustment. Score 0 if basic drawing isn't implemented, 5 if only basic pen tool works, 10 if all essential drawing tools are functional with proper event handling and canvas manipulation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the HBuilder integration properly explained?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether clear instructions for HBuilder setup, project creation, and code organization are provided. Check for specific HBuilder-related configurations, plugin recommendations, and proper directory structures. Deduct 5 points if instructions are vague, 3 points if missing import/export procedures. Full score requires detailed steps with HBuilder-specific screenshots or command references.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the packaging process thoroughly documented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code includes complete packaging instructions for different platforms (Web, Android, iOS) using HBuilder's capabilities. Check for manifest configuration, app icons setup, and deployment steps. Deduct 5 points if packaging steps are incomplete, 3 points if platform-specific settings are missing. Full score requires comprehensive packaging workflow with proper error handling scenarios.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are save/export functionalities implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the drawing app allows users to save their creations as image files (PNG/JPEG), and possibly export to cloud storage or share via social media. Check if the implementation includes file naming options and quality settings. Deduct 5 points if only basic saving is implemented, 3 points if no preview before saving exists. Full score requires multiple export formats and sharing capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser compatibility issues, canvas size limitations, memory management for large drawings, 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. Layer management 2. Filters and effects 3. Undo/Redo history with previews). 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 color pickers) 2. Function modules unrelated to drawing (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during drawing). 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/drawing logic/storage layers), code reusability, 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 drawing interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) No visible lag between pen movement and drawing (≤ 16ms) 2) Smooth transitions between tools and states 3) Clear visual feedback for selections and operations. Deduct 5 points for noticeable drawing lag, 3 points for jerky tool transitions, and 5 points for confusing or hidden tool states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/html-double-layer-rubiks-cube-photo-effect.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1116,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Write an HTML program that creates a double-layer Rubik's cube photo effect.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the double-layer Rubik's cube photo effect correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code successfully creates a visual effect where photos are displayed on a double-layer Rubik's cube structure. The implementation should show correct perspective and layering with photos mapped onto cube faces. Score 0 if the effect is not implemented, 5 if only a basic cube with images is created, and 10 if a true double-layer structure with proper depth and perspective is achieved.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the HTML/CSS 3D transformation properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the use of CSS 3D transforms (transform-style, perspective, rotateX/Y/Z) to create the cube structure. Check if the code correctly implements proper perspective origin, backface visibility, and z-index management. Deduct 5 points if the 3D illusion breaks at certain angles, 3 points if the perspective depth feels unnatural, and 5 points if transforms are improperly nested. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the cube rotation and interaction mechanism well-designed?",
-      "description": "Assess whether user interactions (mouse/touch) allow intuitive rotation of the cube. The code should include proper event handling, smooth transition between states, and maintain the integrity of the cube during rotation. Deduct 5 points if rotation is jerky, 3 points if the rotation axis is inconsistent with user input direction, and 5 points if the cube structure distorts during rotation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the photo mapping and texture handling properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if images are properly mapped to cube faces without distortion, if image preloading is implemented, and if the code handles different image aspect ratios. Deduct 3 points for visible seams between cube faces, 5 points for image distortion, and 5 points if images aren't responsive to container size changes. 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 missing images, browser compatibility issues, variable screen sizes, etc.) and provide fallbacks or graceful degradation. 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. Animated cube assembly/disassembly 2. Dynamic photo transitions when rotating 3. Light/shadow effects that respond to cube orientation). 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 CSS properties that override each other 2. Unnecessary JavaScript calculations that don't contribute to the core functionality 3. Excessive visual elements that distract from the Rubik's cube photo effect. 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 structure/style/interaction logic), code reusability, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused or if there's no separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there are no performance optimizations (e.g., for animations). 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) Clean presentation of the cube without visual clutter 2) Proper contrast between cube elements and background 3) Professional UI elements for any controls. Deduct 3 points for each instance of poor element spacing, 5 points for clashing colors that affect visibility, and 5 points for awkward positioning of the cube in the viewport. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animations and transitions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Smooth rotation without frame drops 2) Appropriate easing functions for natural movement 3) Clear visual feedback during interactions. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for abrupt transitions between states, and 5 points for delayed response to user input (>100ms). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/html-image-upload-clarity-enhancement-save.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1061,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create an HTML page that can upload images, process them for clarity enhancement, and save them.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload through HTML input elements and JavaScript, including drag-and-drop support, file type validation (JPEG, PNG, GIF, WebP), file size limits, and preview functionality. Score 0 if basic upload is not working, 5 if only basic file selection works without validation, and 10 if all upload features including drag-and-drop, validation, and preview are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the image clarity enhancement processing correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the image processing uses Canvas API or WebGL for clarity enhancement algorithms such as sharpening filters, contrast adjustment, brightness optimization, or noise reduction. Evaluate if the processing maintains image quality without artifacts. Deduct 5 points if only basic filters are applied, 3 points if processing causes visible artifacts or quality loss. Full score requires advanced enhancement algorithms with quality preservation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the processed image saving mechanism properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the save functionality supports multiple formats (PNG, JPEG with quality settings), maintains original resolution, and provides download links or automatic download triggers. Check if the saved file preserves the enhanced quality. Deduct 5 points if only one format is supported, 3 points if quality is degraded during save, and 2 points if filename handling is poor. Full implementation should include format options and quality settings.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the complete image processing workflow constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete workflow management: before/after comparison view, processing progress indicators, undo/redo functionality, batch processing capability, and processing history. Deduct 5 points if comparison view is missing, 3 points if no progress indication, and 2 points if batch processing is not supported. Give 10 points if the complete workflow with all features is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid file formats, oversized images, memory overflow, processing 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 processing preview with adjustable parameters 2. AI-powered auto-enhancement suggestions 3. Before/after slider comparison 4. Batch processing with different enhancement profiles). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple image processing libraries for same task) 2. Function modules unrelated to image processing (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during 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 upload/processing/UI layers), error handling patterns, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if no proper async/await handling for file operations. 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 upload/process/save workflow. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Upload feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Processing progress indication with smooth updates 3) Transition animations between states controlled between 300-500ms 4) Clear visual focus guidance throughout the workflow. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy processing indication, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-annotation-tool-drag-draw-text-save.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 478,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Implement an image annotation tool where users can upload images, drag to draw rectangular annotation boxes at specified positions on the image, and write descriptive text for each annotation box. Finally, users should be able to save both the image and annotation information.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements file input for image selection, handles various image formats (JPG, PNG, GIF, etc.), performs client-side validation for file types and size limits, and displays proper feedback during the upload process. Also verify if the uploaded image is rendered correctly with proper aspect ratio preservation. Score 0 if image upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation, and 10 if all features including error handling are present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the rectangular annotation drawing functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Review if the code accurately implements mouse/touch event handling for drawing rectangular boxes (mousedown, mousemove, mouseup or equivalent touch events), includes visual feedback during drawing, maintains proper coordinate calculation relative to the image (not the viewport), and handles edge cases like drawing outside image boundaries. Deduct 5 points if coordinates are incorrectly calculated, 3 points if visual feedback during drawing is missing, and 5 points if annotation persistence between sessions is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the annotation text input system well-designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides a text input mechanism for each annotation box, maintains association between text and specific boxes, includes validation for text input (e.g., character limits, required fields), and handles text positioning relative to boxes appropriately. Check if the system allows editing existing annotations. Score 0 if text annotation is missing, 5 if basic implementation exists but lacks editing capability, and 10 if the system is complete with validation and good UX.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the save functionality comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements proper saving of both image and annotation data, exports in a standard format (JSON, XML, or custom format with documentation), includes metadata like timestamps and image details, and provides clear feedback during the save process. Verify if the saved data structure is well-organized for potential future import. Deduct 5 points if only partial data is saved, 3 points if the format is not standardized, and 5 points if no feedback is provided during saving. 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 uploading invalid files, browser resizing, rapid consecutive actions, network issues during save operations, 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. Annotation templates or presets 2. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient annotation 3. Zooming and panning capabilities for precise annotations 4. Annotation categories with color coding). 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 drawing mechanisms that overlap) 2. Function modules unrelated to image annotation (e.g., built-in filters or effects not needed for annotation) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the annotation process). 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 annotation logic/UI rendering/data management layers), code organization, reusable components, and maintenance considerations. 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 event handling creates memory leaks. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching with clear distinction between UI elements and annotation elements 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system for annotation labels (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual indication of active/selected annotations. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor contrast between annotations and image, and 5 points for chaotic tool arrangement. 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) Immediate visual feedback when drawing boxes 2) Smooth dragging experience without lag 3) Clear visual indication when hovering over interactive elements 4) Intuitive resizing and repositioning of existing annotation boxes. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jittery drawing experience, and 5 points for unintuitive annotation selection mechanics. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-comparison-tool-multiple-modes.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 616,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you produce is executable when possible. Please design an image comparison tool that allows users to upload two images for visual comparison. The tool needs to support multiple comparison modes: 1) Slide comparison (drag the middle divider to view before and after comparison); 2) Transparency comparison (adjust the transparency of the top image); 3) Flip comparison (click to quickly switch between the two images); 4) Side-by-side comparison. Also provide synchronized zoom and pan functions to ensure that corresponding areas of both images can be precisely compared. This is suitable for designers comparing before and after design modifications or photographers comparing photos before and after processing.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload and display functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly handles image upload (supporting common formats like JPG, PNG, WebP), validates file types/sizes, and correctly displays the images with proper error handling. Check if images are properly scaled to fit the viewport initially while preserving aspect ratios.0 points if image upload is not implemented; 5 points if basic upload works but lacks validation or proper error handling; 10 points for complete implementation with proper validation, error handling, and responsive display.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are all four comparison modes correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that all required comparison modes function properly: 1) Slide comparison with draggable divider, 2) Transparency adjustment with smooth opacity control, 3) Flip comparison with clean toggling, and 4) Side-by-side view with consistent alignment. Each mode should handle image differences gracefully.Deduct 2.5 points for each missing or poorly implemented comparison mode. Full 10 points requires all four modes to be fully functional with smooth transitions between modes.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the synchronized zoom and pan functionality implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether zoom and pan functions maintain perfect synchronization between images across all comparison modes. Check if zoom controls are intuitive (mouse wheel, pinch gesture, or UI controls), if pan works with mouse drag or touch gestures, and if the zoomed area remains properly aligned between images.0 points if zoom/pan is not implemented; 5 points if basic functionality exists but synchronization issues occur; 10 points if zoom/pan works flawlessly with proper event handling and maintains perfect alignment between images.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the UI for switching between comparison modes intuitive and accessible?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of mode switching UI: clearly labeled buttons/controls, visual indicators for active mode, smooth transitions between modes, and keyboard shortcuts for accessibility. Mode switching should preserve the current zoom/pan position.Deduct 3 points if mode switching is confusing or lacks visual feedback; deduct 2 points if transitions between modes are jarring; deduct 2 points if keyboard accessibility is missing. Full 10 points for intuitive, accessible controls with smooth transitions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid image files, extremely large/small images, browser compatibility issues, touch vs mouse input) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if the tool degrades gracefully when features aren't supported.Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as out-of-bounds input, network interruption, user operation errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Image histogram comparison, 2. Hotspot detection highlighting differences, 3. Image metadata display, 4. History of previous comparisons, 5. Integration with common design tools).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 zoom controls with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to image comparison (e.g., unrelated editing tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow rendering).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/image processing/event handling layers), code reusability, performance optimization for large images, and browser compatibility considerations. Check for proper memory management when handling multiple images.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 image rendering optimization is poor (causing lag with larger images). 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 distinction between control elements and image display area.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) Image loading shows clear progress indicators 2) Slide divider moves smoothly with cursor/touch 3) Opacity changes render without stuttering 4) Zoom/pan operates at 60fps without jank 5) Mode transitions use appropriate easing.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual stuttering during interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-comparison-tool-slider-save.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 618,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration.\n\n======== Role ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code according to this requirement. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code that is fully commented in simple and easy-to-understand language. Don't output anything else.\n\n======== Output Rules ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code; please ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== Project Requirements ========\nImplement an image comparison tool where, after a user uploads two images, they can use a horizontal slider to see real-time display of the different areas where the two images overlap. After completion, provide a save function for the comparison screenshot.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the dual image upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload handling through HTML input elements and JavaScript, including drag-and-drop upload support, file type validation (accepting common image formats like JPG, PNG, GIF, WebP), file size limits (recommended ≤10MB), and proper error handling for invalid files. Score 0 if basic upload is not working, 5 if only single upload method is implemented, and 10 if multiple upload methods with comprehensive validation are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the horizontal slider comparison mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the slider control accurately divides and displays the two images in real-time, including smooth dragging interaction, proper image alignment and scaling, CSS clip-path or overflow masking for seamless transition effects, and responsive behavior on different screen sizes. Deduct 5 points if images are not properly aligned, 3 points if slider movement is jerky or unresponsive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the real-time image overlay and difference detection implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides real-time visual feedback when images overlap, including proper image scaling to match dimensions, canvas-based pixel-level comparison for highlighting differences, and smooth transition effects during slider movement. Deduct 5 points if images don't scale proportionally, 3 points if difference highlighting is missing or inaccurate. Check for performance optimization during real-time processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the screenshot save functionality complete and reliable?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete screenshot capture functionality using HTML5 Canvas API, proper image rendering at current slider position, support for different output formats (PNG/JPG), and reliable download mechanism. Deduct 5 points if screenshot doesn't capture current comparison state, 3 points if download fails on different browsers. Give 10 points if fully implemented with cross-browser compatibility.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted image files, extremely large/small images, network interruption during upload, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Multiple comparison modes like side-by-side or overlay blend 2. Zoom functionality for detailed inspection 3. Batch comparison support 4. Image metadata display 5. Comparison history). 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 upload handlers coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to image comparison (e.g., built-in image editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during comparison). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating upload logic/comparison engine/UI components), error handling consistency, and code organization. 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 memory leaks occur during image processing. 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 upload areas and comparison zone. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Slider drag response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Image transition animations controlled between 200-400ms 3) Clear visual feedback for upload progress and comparison states 4) Smooth performance during real-time comparison without frame drops. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy slider movement, and 5 points for unclear interface states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}