@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/browser-video-recorder-editor-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 523,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure the code you provide is executable for demonstration. Develop a browser-based real-time video recording and editing tool that allows users to record video through their camera, perform basic editing (cutting, merging), add text and filters, preview editing effects in real-time, and export the recorded video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video recording functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code correctly implements the MediaStream API to access the user's camera, creates a robust MediaRecorder implementation for video capture, and handles permission requests gracefully. Score 0 if there's no video recording functionality, 5 if basic recording works but lacks error handling, and 10 if it includes proper permission handling, recording indicators, and fallback mechanisms for unsupported browsers.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the basic video editing features (cutting, merging) implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements video segment manipulation using techniques like Web Workers for processing or browser-native APIs. Check if it can accurately cut video at specified timestamps and merge multiple clips together. Deduct 5 points if the editing causes quality loss, 3 points if the editing operations aren't precise to the frame level, and 3 points if preview generation of edits is slow (>500ms). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is text overlay and filter application functionality effective?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of text overlays (including font selection, positioning, timing control) and filter effects (using CSS filters, WebGL, or canvas-based processing). Assess if text can be styled, positioned, and timed properly, and if filters are applied efficiently without significant performance degradation. Deduct 3 points if text positioning is imprecise, 3 points if filter previews aren't real-time, and 4 points if there's no keyframe support for text/filter timing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the solution provide real-time preview of all editing effects?",
-      "description": "Check if the implementation provides immediate visual feedback for all editing operations without significant lag (<100ms delay). Verify that the preview accurately represents the final output and updates dynamically as users make changes. Deduct 5 points if the preview isn't representative of the final export, 5 points if there's noticeable lag (>250ms) when applying complex effects, and 3 points if the preview doesn't update automatically with edits. 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 camera access denial, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations during processing, unexpected user interactions) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted automatic cutting 2. Audio visualization overlays 3. Motion tracking for text/effects 4. One-click social media optimization). 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 filter systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., a built-in file manager) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive background animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating recording/editing/preview/export modules), memory management strategies for video processing, and error handling. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if memory leaks are found when handling large videos; deduct 5 points if there's no structured error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during timeline scrubbing, and 5 points for difficult-to-access key editing tools. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/face-api-video-enhancement-webpage.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1428,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Using JS, write a complete webpage that uses face-api.js to automatically enhance people in camera video, including face slimming, skin whitening, eye enlargement, makeup changing, outfit changing and other features. Display a final output video window that is complete, aesthetically pleasing, perfect, smooth, and seamless. Use the latest technology with complete usable source code. Pay attention to details, make the interface beautiful with a sci-fi style, at a product-grade level.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is face detection and tracking correctly implemented using face-api.js?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code correctly integrates face-api.js for robust face detection and tracking. Check if it loads the required models (SSD MobileNet, facial landmarks, etc.), handles multiple faces, and maintains tracking between frames. Score 0 if basic face detection is missing, 5 if only basic detection works, and 10 if detection includes accurate landmark tracking with proper error handling for lighting variations and partial face visibility.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are all required beauty enhancement features fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements all requested beauty features (face slimming, skin whitening, eye enlargement, makeup changing, outfit changing). Check if each effect uses appropriate algorithms: face slimming should use mesh warping with landmark controls; skin whitening needs color correction with tone preservation; eye enlargement should use proportional landmark manipulation; makeup should utilize layer blending with alpha masks; outfit changing requires body segmentation and virtual try-on. Deduct 2 points for each missing feature or 1 point if poorly implemented. Full score requires all features with smooth transitions between them.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the real-time video processing optimized for performance?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code employs optimization techniques for smooth real-time processing (target of 30+ FPS). Check for: worker thread utilization for computation-heavy tasks, WebGL/GPU acceleration for filters, downsampling during heavy processing, keyframe interval optimization, and proper memory management to prevent leaks. Score 10 if processing runs at 30+ FPS on mid-range hardware with negligible latency, 5 if noticeable but usable lag exists, and 0 if processing causes severe frame drops or browser crashes.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the application provide user controls for adjusting enhancement parameters?",
-      "description": "Check if the interface provides intuitive controls for users to adjust the intensity and parameters of each enhancement feature. Each effect should have at least a basic intensity slider, and advanced options where appropriate. Score 10 if controls include: real-time preview, presets, individual feature toggles, intensity sliders with numerical values, and ability to save custom settings. Deduct 2 points for each major control type missing, and 5 points if parameters can't be adjusted at all.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as camera access denial, unsupported browser, face not detected, poor lighting conditions, 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. AR accessories overlay 2. Expression-triggered effects 3. Background replacement/blurring 4. Beauty filter history/comparison). 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 filters (e.g., multiple skin smoothing algorithms running simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to beauty enhancement (e.g., unrelated animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects that slow down 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 camera handling/face detection/effect rendering/UI layers), error handling coverage, and resource management. 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 resources are not properly managed (memory leaks, no cleanup on page unload). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet sci-fi style and professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern sci-fi design principles: 1) Futuristic color scheme (neon blues, purples with high contrast) 2) Proper layout with holographic-style elements 3) Clean typography with technical feel (display fonts ≥ 16px, monospace for data). Deduct 3 points for each non-sci-fi visual element, 5 points for inconsistent visual language, and 5 points for cluttered/confusing interface. Check if the UI has sci-fi touches like particle effects, glowing elements, or digital distortion effects. 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) Video processing appears seamless with no visible 'jumps' when applying effects 2) UI transitions use appropriate animation duration (300-500ms) 3) Clear visual feedback when adjusting parameters. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between beauty filter states, and 5 points for effects that create unnatural-looking results (e.g., uncanny valley face distortions). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/flutter-media-player-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1212,
-  "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 can be demonstrated. Write a media player frontend using Flutter.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core media playback functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code uses Flutter's video_player or better_player packages correctly, implements basic controls (play/pause, seek, volume), and handles different media formats (mp4, mp3, etc.). Score 0 if core playback is missing, 5 if only basic playback works, and 10 if it handles multiple formats with proper state management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the player UI responsive and adaptive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the UI adapts to different screen sizes and orientations (portrait/landscape). Check for proper handling of SafeArea, system UI overlays, and if it implements different layouts for phones, tablets, and desktop. Deduct 5 points if the UI breaks on orientation change, and 3 points if it doesn't adapt to different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are advanced media features implemented?",
-      "description": "Check for implementation of features like playlist management, favorites, history, speed control, subtitle support, and picture-in-picture mode. Score 3 points for basic playlist, 5 points if it includes history/favorites, and 10 points if advanced features like subtitles and PIP are properly implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is state management properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code uses proper Flutter state management solutions (Provider, Bloc, Riverpod, etc.) to handle media state, buffering status, and UI updates. Check for separation between UI and business logic. Deduct 5 points for global state leaks, 3 points for excessive rebuilds, and 5 points if state management is inconsistent across the app. 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 failed network requests, codec errors, permission denials, 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. Custom gesture controls 2. Audio visualization effects 3. Smart recommendations based on viewing 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 volume control mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to media playback (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during playback). 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/controllers/services), widget composition, code reusability, and proper use of Flutter architecture patterns. Deduct 5 points if widget trees are too deeply nested; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns between layers. 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 Material Design or Cupertino principles: 1) Consistent theming (proper use of ThemeData) 2) Proper layout spacing (appropriate padding and margins) 3) Professional typography system (using TextTheme appropriately). Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent visual element, 5 points for clashing colors or themes, and 5 points for poor accessibility features (contrast, touch targets). 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 Flutter's design principles: 1) Smooth animations at 60fps 2) Proper use of Hero animations for transitions 3) Haptic feedback and visual responses to user input. Deduct 5 points for jank or stuttering during playback, 3 points for abrupt transitions between screens, and 5 points for unresponsive UI during media loading. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/frontend-tool-animated-video-elements.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 504,
-  "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. Implement a frontend tool for adding animated elements to videos, where users can upload videos, select different animated elements (such as twinkling stars, scrolling text, etc.) to add to the video, set the appearance time and duration of these animated elements, preview the effect, and then export the video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload and processing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete video upload system with proper file validation (format, size), progress indicators, and error handling. Verify if the uploaded video can be properly loaded into the editor canvas. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or proper error handling, and 10 if fully implemented with comprehensive validation and user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the animated elements library comprehensively implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the variety and quality of animated elements provided (twinkling stars, scrolling text, particles, shapes, etc.). Check if each element has proper customization options (size, color, opacity, animation speed). Deduct 2 points for each major animation type missing, deduct 3 points if the animations are not smooth or have rendering issues. Give 10 points if at least 5 different animation categories with proper customization are available.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the timeline and keyframe editing system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether users can precisely control when animated elements appear and disappear in the video. Check for the presence of a visual timeline interface, keyframe markers, ability to adjust duration, and precise timing controls. Deduct 5 points if only basic start/end time inputs are available without visual timeline, deduct 3 points if keyframe editing is clunky or imprecise. Give 10 points for a fully functional, intuitive timeline system.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the real-time preview and video export functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the tool provides real-time preview of the edited video with animations before export. Verify if the export function properly renders the final video with all added elements at the correct positions and times. Deduct 5 points if preview is severely lagging or inconsistent with the final export, deduct 8 points if export functionality is missing, deduct 3 points if export options (resolution, format) are limited. Give 10 points for smooth preview and high-quality export functionality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases such as browser compatibility issues, large video files, concurrent animations, and user operation errors. Look for error boundaries, graceful degradation, and informative error messages. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these scenarios, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no error handling is implemented, 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 positioning of elements 2. Animation templates/presets library 3. Collaborative editing features 4. Audio-reactive animations). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar animation controls 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., a built-in image gallery unrelated to the animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary UI animations that slow down the editor). 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 video processing/animation logic/UI components), code reusability, performance optimization for video rendering, and proper state management. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no optimization for video processing performance. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows professional video editing software conventions: 1) Clear workspace division (timeline, preview, controls panels) 2) Consistent color scheme appropriate for video editing (typically dark theme with accent colors) 3) Proper contrast for extended editing sessions. Deduct 3 points for cluttered interface elements, 5 points for poor workspace organization that hinders workflow, and 5 points for inappropriately bright colors that interfere with video content perception. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation controls and editing interactions are intuitive and responsive: 1) Dragging elements responds instantly (<100ms) 2) Timeline scrubbing is smooth and accurate 3) Preview updates happen within 500ms of edits 4) Element selection and manipulation have clear visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for laggy timeline interactions, 3 points for delayed preview updates, and 5 points for confusing animation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/frontend-video-animated-stickers-editor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 499,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Develop a frontend video feature for adding animated stickers. After users upload videos, they can select different animated stickers (such as dynamic emoticons, cartoon patterns, etc.) to add to the video, set the position and timing of the stickers, preview the video with stickers in real-time, and export the video when complete.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload and processing system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code provides complete video upload functionality with proper file type validation, size limits, progress indicators, and error handling. Check if the uploaded video is properly processed for manipulation (decoding, frame extraction if needed). Score 0 if video upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or error handling, and 10 if it includes comprehensive upload features with proper feedback mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the sticker management system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides a user interface for selecting, previewing, and managing animated stickers. Check if stickers are properly categorized, searchable, and if there's support for user-uploaded custom stickers. Score 0 if sticker selection is missing, 5 if basic sticker selection exists without organization or preview features, and 10 if it includes a well-designed sticker library with preview capabilities and custom sticker upload support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the position and timing control mechanisms for stickers implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code allows users to drag-and-drop stickers onto the video, resize them, rotate them, and set their appearance/disappearance timing. Verify if there's a timeline control for precise timing adjustment. Deduct 3 points if position editing is limited, 4 points if timing controls are missing, and 5 points if the interface lacks real-time feedback during adjustment. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the solution include real-time preview functionality?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code provides a real-time preview of how the video will look with applied stickers. Check if the preview updates immediately when sticker positions or timing are changed. Verify if the preview maintains proper synchronization between video and stickers. Score 0 if preview is not available, 5 if basic preview exists but with performance issues or synchronization problems, and 10 if the preview is smooth, accurate, and responsive to all user edits.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported video formats, oversized files, browser compatibility issues, resource 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. AI-assisted sticker placement recommendations 2. Motion tracking to attach stickers to moving objects 3. Custom animation paths for stickers 4. Audio-reactive stickers that respond to sound). 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 video players coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video sticker editing (e.g., a built-in social network) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary background animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing/UI/sticker management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast scrubbing through the video, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons (like export). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/frontend-video-color-adjustment-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 547,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for display. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I am providing you with a software development requirement description and asking you to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You will always generate complete, runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code\n3. Before final output, carefully review all code and evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements include external API access or need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nCreate a frontend video color adjustment application where users can upload videos, adjust video brightness, contrast, and saturation, preview the adjusted video in real-time, and finally save the adjusted video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Video Upload and Processing Implementation",
-      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements video file upload functionality, including file selection, format validation, and initial processing.0 points if no upload functionality is implemented, 5 points if basic file selection is available but lacks format validation, 10 points if complete upload functionality with proper format validation, error handling, and loading indicators is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Color Adjustment Features Implementation",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the brightness, contrast, and saturation adjustment features are properly implemented with appropriate range controls and real-time application.Deduct 3 points for each missing adjustment feature. Deduct 2 points if adjustment ranges are inappropriate (too extreme or too limited). Deduct 2 points if adjustments don't apply in real-time. Full score is 10 points if all three adjustments work properly with appropriate ranges and real-time feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Real-time Video Preview Functionality",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of real-time preview that shows color adjustments as they are applied, including preview performance and accuracy.0 points if no preview is available, 5 points if preview exists but has significant lag (>300ms) or inaccuracies in displaying adjustments, 10 points if preview is smooth (<100ms response) and accurately reflects all color adjustments.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Video Saving and Export Capabilities",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes functionality to save the edited video with applied color adjustments, including format options and quality settings.0 points if saving functionality is not implemented, 5 points if basic saving is available but lacks format/quality options or progress indicators, 10 points if complete saving functionality with format options, quality settings, and progress indication is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Code Robustness",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported formats, large file sizes, 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": "Innovative Features",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Preset color filters, 2. History/undo functionality, 3. Split-screen before/after comparison, 4. Batch processing).Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Redundant Features",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple video processing libraries used together) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., a built-in social sharing system) 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": "Engineering Quality",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing/UI/state management), code structure, performance optimization techniques, and memory management.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 optimization is implemented for video processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Interface Design Quality",
-      "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 controls for video editing (sliders with appropriate precision and visual feedback).Deduct 3 points for each poorly designed control element, 5 points for a cluttered or confusing interface layout, and 5 points for inconsistent styling across the application. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Performance and Responsiveness",
-      "description": "Judge whether the application performs efficiently: 1) Video processing operations complete within reasonable time (<500ms for preview updates) 2) UI remains responsive during video processing 3) Efficient memory usage to prevent browser crashes with large videos.Deduct 5 points if adjustments take >1s to reflect in the preview, 5 points if the UI freezes during processing, and 5 points if there's no implementation of memory management for large videos. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/html-fifteen-second-short-video.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1191,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Help me create HTML for a fifteen-second short video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the HTML5 video implementation complete and functional?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements HTML5 video elements with correct attributes (src, controls, autoplay, loop, muted, etc.). Check if the video duration is precisely controlled to 15 seconds through JavaScript timing mechanisms or video editing. Score 0 if basic video element is missing, 5 if only static video tag is present without duration control, and 10 if all video attributes and 15-second constraint are properly implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are interactive controls and playback features properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether custom video controls are implemented including play/pause buttons, progress bar, volume control, and fullscreen toggle. Check if JavaScript event listeners handle video state changes (play, pause, ended, timeupdate). Deduct 5 points if custom controls are missing, 3 points if progress tracking is inaccurate. Full score requires seamless control integration with proper event handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is responsive design and cross-device compatibility ensured?",
-      "description": "Check whether the video player adapts to different screen sizes using CSS media queries and flexible layouts. Verify compatibility across major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge) and mobile devices. Deduct 5 points if mobile responsiveness is poor, 3 points if aspect ratio is not maintained on different screens. Full score requires perfect adaptation across all devices.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are performance optimization and loading strategies implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether video loading is optimized with proper preload strategies, lazy loading, and compression techniques. Check if fallback mechanisms are provided for unsupported video formats (WebM, MP4, OGG). Deduct 5 points if no preload optimization, 3 points if multiple format support is missing. Full score requires comprehensive loading optimization and format compatibility.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as video loading failures, unsupported formats, 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. Custom video overlays or annotations 2. Interactive hotspots or clickable elements 3. Picture-in-picture mode 4. Video thumbnail preview on hover). 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 video control sets) 2. Function modules unrelated to video playback (e.g., unnecessary social sharing widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect video performance (e.g., heavy CSS animations during playback). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core video 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 video logic/UI/styling layers), semantic HTML structure, and maintainable CSS organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or modern HTML5 semantics are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if CSS is not organized or lacks proper naming conventions. 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 typography system (control labels ≥ 14px, proper contrast ratios) 4) Video player aesthetics matching modern standards. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for glaring color combinations, and 5 points for chaotic video control layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the video interactions conform to user experience standards: 1) Control response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth progress bar scrubbing without stuttering 3) Hover states and transitions between 200-400ms 4) Clear visual feedback for all interactive elements. Deduct 5 points for each control without proper feedback, 3 points for laggy video seeking, and 5 points for hard-to-find or unclear control elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/multi-track-video-editor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 530,
-  "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 whenever possible. Please implement a multi-track video editor that allows users to add video, audio, and subtitles on different tracks. Users should be able to independently control the order, volume, and visibility of each track, and finally export all tracks as a single composite video file.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the multi-track timeline interface fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a timeline with multiple independent tracks through HTML/JavaScript, and whether it includes proper track visualization, time markers, and zooming capabilities. Score 0 if the timeline interface is not implemented, 5 if it's basic without zooming or customization, and 10 if it includes features like time markers, snap-to-grid, and customizable track heights.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the track types (video, audio, subtitle) properly implemented with appropriate controls?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides distinct track types with appropriate controls for each: videos should have opacity/visibility toggles, audio tracks should have volume controls and waveform visualization, subtitles should have text editing and timing controls. Deduct 3 points if any track type is missing, 3 points if track-specific controls are incomplete, and 2 points if the visualization is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the media import and parsing functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code handles importing various media formats (mp4, webm, mp3, wav, srt, vtt), extracts metadata (duration, resolution, codec), generates previews/thumbnails for video content, and parses subtitle files correctly. Deduct 3 points for each media type not supported, 3 points if preview generation is missing, and 4 points if metadata extraction is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the video export and rendering pipeline implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a proper rendering pipeline that combines all tracks (video, audio, subtitles) into a single output file with appropriate settings for resolution, framerate, and format selection. The implementation should include progress tracking and error handling. Deduct 5 points if only client-side preview is available without actual export, 5 points if the export lacks format options, and 3 points if there's no progress tracking. 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 file formats, corrupted media files, browser memory 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. AI-assisted editing suggestions 2. Auto-synchronization of audio tracks 3. Voice-to-text for automatic subtitle generation 4. Transition effects library). 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 playback controls with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., built-in social media sharing) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessarily complex animations in the UI). 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 media processing/timeline/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 professional video editor UI principles: 1) Dark theme optimized for media viewing 2) Clear visual hierarchy between preview, timeline, and controls 3) Consistent iconography and color-coding for different track types. Deduct 3 points for poor contrast making content hard to see, 5 points for inconsistent or confusing UI elements, and 5 points for inefficient use of screen space. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the timeline scrubbing, track manipulation, and preview updates conform to professional editor standards: 1) Responsive preview updates (≤ 200ms) 2) Smooth timeline scrolling and zooming 3) Drag-and-drop track manipulation with visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for laggy preview updates, 3 points for jerky timeline navigation, and 5 points for imprecise track manipulation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}