@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/date-range-selection-processing.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1772,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. I need to process date range selection. Please generate complete code that I can directly copy and paste. Thank you!",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the date range selection UI properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete date range selection interface with start and end date inputs, a calendar picker, and clear visual indicators of the selected range. Score 0 if there's no visual representation, 5 points if basic input fields are provided without a calendar, and 10 points if a full interactive calendar with range highlighting is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the date validation logic comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes validation for: invalid dates (e.g., February 30), ensuring end date is after start date, handling different date formats, timezone considerations, and preventing selection of invalid ranges (e.g., weekends/holidays if specified). Deduct 2 points for each missing validation aspect. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the implementation handle date manipulation properly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly handles date operations like calculating days between dates, adding/subtracting days, formatting dates in different locales, and handling edge cases (leap years, month transitions, etc.). Deduct 3 points if date arithmetic is incorrect, 3 points if formatting is inconsistent, and 4 points if timezone issues are ignored. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are convenient selection shortcuts implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes practical shortcuts like 'Today', 'Last 7 days', 'Last month', 'Year to date', etc. Also check for intuitive navigation between months/years and range preview functionality. Award 3 points for basic navigation, 3 points for predefined ranges, and 4 points for intelligent defaults and range preview. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid user inputs, browser compatibility issues, edge date cases like leap years) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Visual heatmap of date selection frequency 2. Intelligent range suggestions based on context 3. Keyboard navigation support). 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 date handling logic (e.g., multiple date parsing mechanisms) 2. Functionality unrelated to date selection (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Overcomplicated UI that affects usability. 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 date logic/UI components/event handling), appropriate use of libraries vs. custom code, and adherence to best practices. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if browser compatibility is not considered. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the date selection UI follows modern design principles: 1) Clear visual hierarchy between inputs and calendar 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Appropriate color contrast for selected dates and ranges. Deduct 3 points for cluttered calendar layout, 5 points for poor contrast that affects readability, and 5 points for inconsistent styling between date components. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the date selection interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Immediate feedback when dates are selected 2) Smooth transitions when navigating between months/years 3) Clear visual cues for valid/invalid selections. Deduct 5 points for laggy calendar rendering, 3 points for jumpy month transitions, and 5 points for unclear selected state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/deepseek-write-daily-sunlight-record.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1150,
-  "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. For a computer novice, how to use Deepseek to write a daily sunlight record",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the daily sunlight record application concept clearly explained for a novice?",
-      "description": "Check if the response includes a beginner-friendly introduction to what a daily sunlight record is, its purpose, and how it can be useful. Score 0 if no explanation is provided, 5 if basic explanation is given, and 10 if comprehensive explanation with practical examples is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is there a step-by-step guide for using Deepseek to create the application?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether clear instructions are provided specifically for using Deepseek to generate the code for the sunlight recorder. The guide should include how to formulate the prompt, what information to provide, and how to iterate on responses. Deduct 5 points if Deepseek-specific guidance is missing, and 3 points if the instructions are too technical for a novice. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the sunlight recording functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the code allows users to record date, time, duration, and intensity of sunlight exposure in an intuitive way. Check if data validation is implemented (preventing invalid dates, negative durations, etc.). Score 0 if core functionality is missing, 5 if basic recording is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive recording with validation is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the application include data visualization for the recorded sunlight data?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements visual representations (charts, graphs, calendars) to help users understand patterns in their sunlight exposure. Charts should show trends over time with proper labeling. Deduct 5 points if visualizations are missing, 3 points if they lack interactivity, and 2 points if they're not intuitive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, browser compatibility issues, data loss prevention) 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. Weather API integration for automatic light condition verification 2. Reminder notifications based on sunlight exposure goals 3. Seasonal analysis of sunlight patterns). 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 date pickers or duplicate data storage mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to sunlight recording (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/view/controller layers), code readability for novices, and build process simplicity. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if the code is overly complex for a novice to understand; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build/deployment process requires advanced technical knowledge. 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 novice-friendly?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects and interactions are appropriate for computer novices: 1) Clear, labeled interactive elements 2) Tooltips or help text for unfamiliar functions 3) Undo/redo capability for mistakes. Deduct 5 points for unintuitive interactions that would confuse novices, 3 points for missing guidance on complex features, and 5 points for technical terminology that isn't explained. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/detailed-daily-schedule-planner.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 787,
-  "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. Help me write a detailed daily schedule planner.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core scheduling functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code properly implements calendar representation, event creation, modification, and deletion. Check for proper date handling, time slot management, and conflict detection. Score 0 if basic scheduling is missing, 5 if only simple event adding is implemented, and 10 if the planner includes comprehensive event management with validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the planner include task categorization and priority management?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code allows users to categorize tasks (work, personal, etc.), set priorities (high, medium, low), and filter/sort based on these attributes. Check for visual indicators of priority levels. Deduct 3 points if categorization is missing, 3 points if priority setting is absent, and 4 points if no filtering/sorting mechanisms exist. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there persistent data storage and retrieval functionality?",
-      "description": "Check if the planner implements data persistence using localStorage, IndexedDB, or server-side storage. Assess if data is properly loaded on application start and saved on changes. Verify existence of backup/export functionality. Deduct 5 points if data isn't persisted between sessions, 3 points if there's no export option, and 2 points if data validation is missing before storage. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are notifications and reminders implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the planner includes notifications for upcoming events, deadline reminders, and customizable alert timing. Check if the implementation uses browser notifications, sound alerts, or visual cues. Score 0 if reminders are completely missing, 5 if only basic visual reminders exist, and 10 if comprehensive notification options with timing preferences are available.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases (invalid date inputs, concurrent edits, browser refresh, etc.) and provides friendly error messages or recovery mechanisms. Check for form validation, proper error handling, and data integrity protection. Give 10 points if all common edge cases are handled gracefully, 5 points if basic validation exists but some scenarios are unhandled, and 0 points if critical errors can easily occur.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check for standout features that enhance usability (e.g., 1. Natural language processing for quick event creation 2. AI-suggested optimal scheduling 3. Integration with external calendars 4. Weather information relevant to planning). 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 for three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate scheduling mechanisms that perform similar functions differently 2. Overly complex features irrelevant to daily planning 3. Unnecessary animations or visual effects that hinder performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core planning functionality is obscured by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review code organization (separation of UI/logic/storage layers), implementation of design patterns, naming conventions, and comments. Check for modular structure and reusable components. Deduct 5 points for global variable abuse, 3 points for inconsistent naming or poor readability, and 2 points for inadequate comments. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the design follows modern UI principles: 1) Clean and consistent color scheme (max 3-4 colors) 2) Proper whitespace and layout hierarchy 3) Responsive design for different screen sizes 4) Readable typography (proper contrast, size ≥14px). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered view, 2 points for inconsistent styling, and 5 points for poor mobile adaptation. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether interactions feel natural and efficient: 1) Quick response to user inputs (<100ms) 2) Logical tab order and keyboard navigation 3) Clear visual feedback for actions 4) Intuitive drag-and-drop for event management if implemented. Deduct 3 points for each laggy interaction, 2 points for confusing navigation patterns, and 5 points if key planning operations require excessive clicks. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/deveco-studio-jd-login-navigation-interface.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1207,
-  "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. Using DevEco Studio, design a JD.com login interface with only navigation functionality. Provide detailed steps and code using the entry framework.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core JD.com login interface UI implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code implements the essential elements of a JD.com login interface: logo placement at the top, input fields for username/phone and password, login button, and additional options (register, forgot password). Score 0 if missing core elements, 5 if basic elements exist but with incorrect styling, 10 if fully implemented with proper JD.com branding and layout.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the necessary navigation components implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the navigation functionality includes a top navigation bar, category navigation menu, and appropriate navigation destinations. Evaluate if the code handles navigation events properly and maintains state between screens. Score 0 if navigation is not implemented, 5 if basic navigation exists but with limited functionality, 10 if complete navigation with proper transitions is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the DevEco Studio entry framework utilized properly?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the code correctly uses ArkTS/JS, component lifecycle methods, and HarmonyOS APIs according to the DevEco Studio specifications. Verify proper project structure with pages, components, and resources organized according to recommended practices. Deduct 5 points if framework features are underutilized, and 7 points if the wrong framework is used entirely. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are form validation and input handling implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the login form includes proper validation for username/phone and password fields with appropriate error messages. Check if the code handles input focus, keyboard events, and auto-fill functionality. Deduct 3 points for missing validation, 3 points for no error handling, and 4 points for lack of keyboard interaction support. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, network errors during login attempts, device rotation, 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. Biometric authentication option 2. Remember me functionality 3. Dark mode support 4. Accessibility features). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation methods for the same field) 2. Function modules unrelated to login or navigation (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/network layers), component reusability, and build process configuration. 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 properly configured. 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 JD.com's brand guidelines: 1) Correct use of JD.com's red color (#E2231A) and secondary colors 2) Proper layout spacing and element alignment 3) Professional typography (consistent with JD.com's font style). Deduct 3 points for each visual inconsistency with JD branding, 5 points for poor color usage, and 5 points for inconsistent spacing and alignment. 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 HarmonyOS design principles: 1) Responsive button feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions between login screen and navigation destinations 3) Clear visual focus guidance on interactive elements. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky animations, and 5 points for navigation transitions that feel disconnected or abrupt. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/develop-computer-keyboard-uni-app.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1460,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Develop a computer keyboard using uni-app.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic keyboard UI layout correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the keyboard layout follows standard QWERTY design with proper key spacing and row alignment. Verify if all standard keys (letters, numbers, function keys) are present and properly sized. Score 0 if basic keyboard structure is missing, 5 if layout exists but has alignment issues, and 10 if the layout is professional and follows standard keyboard conventions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the keyboard event handling system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether key press/release events are correctly captured and processed. Check if the code handles multi-touch scenarios and prevents ghost touches. The implementation should include visual feedback on key press. Deduct 5 points if key events don't trigger appropriate actions, and 3 points if the code doesn't handle simultaneous key presses. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are special keyboard features implemented?",
-      "description": "Review implementation of modifier keys (Shift, Ctrl, Alt), toggle keys (Caps Lock, Num Lock), and special function keys. Check if the keyboard can switch between different layouts (e.g., alphabetic, numeric, symbol). Deduct 5 points if modifier keys don't change keyboard state properly, and 3 points if layout switching is buggy. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the uni-app cross-platform compatibility addressed?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code utilizes uni-app framework properly to ensure compatibility across multiple platforms (iOS, Android, H5, etc.). Check if platform-specific APIs are conditionally used when necessary. Deduct 5 points if the code only works on one platform, 3 points if there are minor platform-specific issues. 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 rapid tapping, long-press operations, screen orientation changes, etc.) and provide friendly error 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. Haptic feedback 2. Swipe typing capability 3. Custom theme options 4. Predictive text/auto-complete). 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 event handlers for the same action) 2. Function modules unrelated to keyboard functionality (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations that slow down key response). 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 layout/event handling/state management), component reusability, and proper use of uni-app best practices. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if uni-app components are not properly leveraged. 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 keyboard design principles: 1) Consistent key sizes and spacing 2) Clear visual differentiation between key groups 3) Professional color scheme with good contrast for readability 4) Proper use of shadows and highlights for visual depth. Deduct 3 points for each visual inconsistency, 5 points for poor color contrast that affects usability, and 5 points for unprofessional appearance. 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) Key press visual feedback delay ≤ 50ms 2) Smooth animations for layout transitions 3) Proper haptic/audio feedback when available. Deduct 5 points for each key press without feedback, 3 points for laggy animations during typing, and 5 points for unresponsive interfaces during fast typing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/electron-json-tool-macos-desktop-app.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 341,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Help me create a macOS desktop application using Electron. The application should include a tool list menu where users can select and use corresponding tools.\n\nFirst-level menu: JSON, with second-level menus: JSON Format, JSON DIFF.\n\nWhen clicking the \"JSON Format\" menu, the application should be divided into two rich text boxes internally. The left rich text box is for pasting the original JSON, and the right rich text box displays the formatted (beautified) JSON text.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Electron application structure properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that the code includes essential Electron components: main process (main.js), renderer process, preload scripts, and proper IPC communication. The application should follow the Electron security best practices with contextIsolation enabled and nodeIntegration disabled. Deduct 5 points if missing proper window management (creation, close, minimize), 5 points if missing appropriate security configurations, and 5 points if the application lifecycle isn't handled correctly. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the first-level JSON menu with second-level options correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the menu structure is properly defined with 'JSON' as the first-level menu and 'JSON Format' and 'JSON DIFF' as second-level items. The menu should be created using Electron's Menu API with proper event handling. Deduct 5 points if the menu structure is incorrect, 3 points if keyboard shortcuts are missing, and 2 points if menu state management (enabling/disabling based on context) is not implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the JSON Format functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the JSON Format tool correctly splits the view into two rich text areas, allows pasting in the left panel, and displays properly formatted JSON in the right panel. The formatter should handle indentation, line breaks, and color syntax highlighting. Deduct 5 points if syntax highlighting is missing, 3 points if large JSON files cause performance issues, and 5 points if the formatter doesn't handle JSON validation errors gracefully. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the JSON DIFF functionality properly designed and implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the JSON DIFF tool allows comparing two JSON structures with clear visual indication of differences (additions, deletions, modifications). The diff view should highlight changes using color coding and provide a structured view of changes. Deduct 5 points if the diff algorithm doesn't handle nested structures, 3 points if large JSON comparison is inefficient, and 5 points if there's no option to ignore formatting/whitespace differences. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid JSON input, large files, memory constraints, 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. Dark/Light theme support 2. JSON schema validation 3. Export options to different formats). 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 JSON parsers used) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core JSON tools (e.g., a built-in web browser) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/business logic/data processing layers), error handling quality, 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 macOS design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows macOS design principles: 1) Native-looking controls and interaction patterns 2) Proper spacing and alignment following Apple's Human Interface Guidelines 3) Professional typography with system font usage. Deduct 3 points for each non-native UI element, 5 points for layouts that don't adapt to window resizing, and 5 points for inconsistent visual hierarchy. 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 feedback for JSON formatting operations 2) Smooth transitions between different tool views 3) Efficient handling of large JSON documents without UI freezing. Deduct 5 points for operations without visual feedback, 5 points for UI freezes during JSON processing, and 3 points for jarring transitions between application states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/electron-vue-secure-dual-window-communication.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 715,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable. Regarding an electron+vue dual-window program:\n1. Ensure the main window can send messages to the second window.\n2. Ensure it can run on Windows 7.\n3. Ensure secure communication between the main thread and renderer thread.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the dual-window implementation in Electron correctly structured?",
-      "description": "Examine if the code properly creates and manages two separate BrowserWindow instances. Check that window creation includes proper configuration options (width, height, webPreferences, etc.). Verify that both windows load the appropriate Vue components/pages. Score 0 if only one window is implemented, 5 if basic window creation exists but lacks proper configuration, and 10 if dual windows are fully implemented with appropriate lifecycle management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is cross-window communication properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that the main window can send messages to the second window using appropriate IPC mechanisms. Check for implementation of either BrowserWindow.webContents.send() or ipcRenderer/webContents communication patterns. Ensure messages are properly formatted and include error handling. Deduct 5 points if communication is one-way only, 3 points if message acknowledgment is missing, and 2 points if error handling is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is Windows 7 compatibility ensured?",
-      "description": "Check if the code specifies an Electron version compatible with Windows 7 (typically Electron ≤12). Verify that no APIs or features exclusive to newer OS versions are used. Check for proper polyfills and fallbacks. Look for explicit testing configurations for Windows 7. Deduct 5 points if incompatible Electron version is specified, 3 points if Windows 7-incompatible APIs are used without fallbacks, and 5 points if no compatibility considerations exist at all. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the IPC security implementation robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code implements secure communication between main and renderer processes. Check for proper use of contextIsolation, nodeIntegration (set to false), preload scripts with exposed APIs, and message validation. Verify data sanitization before processing. Score 0 if security basics are ignored, 5 if basic security measures exist but with vulnerabilities, and 10 if comprehensive security practices are implemented including input validation and context isolation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window closure during communication, IPC message timeout, process crashes, 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. Window state persistence between sessions 2. Customizable IPC timeout handling 3. Drag-and-drop between windows 4. Automatic window arrangement). 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 IPC functions 2. Unnecessary window creation/management code 3. Excessive event listeners or communication channels that could lead to memory leaks. 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 window management, IPC handling, and Vue components), unit test coverage for IPC messages, and build process automation for both development and production. 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) IPC response time ≤ 100ms 2) Window opening/closing animations controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for cross-window operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy window transitions, and 5 points for unclear indication of which window has focus. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/electronic-signature-plugin-canvas.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 284,
-  "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. How can one write an electronic signature plugin using canvas?",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core signature capture mechanism fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements proper mouse/touch event handling for signature capture, including start, move, and end events. Verify smooth line drawing with proper point interpolation instead of just connecting dots. 10 points for complete implementation with pressure sensitivity support, 5 points for basic implementation, 0 points if core functionality is missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the canvas properly initialized and configured?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the canvas is properly initialized with correct dimensions, resolution handling for different devices (using device pixel ratio), and appropriate line styles (width, color, cap style). Check if the canvas has proper clearing mechanisms and initial state. 10 points for perfect configuration with responsive sizing, 5 points if basic configuration only, 0 points for improper setup.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are signature export options comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Review whether the plugin provides multiple export formats (PNG, JPEG, SVG, base64 encoding) with configurable options like background transparency, quality settings, and dimension control. Check if data URL generation works correctly. 10 points if all major formats with options are supported, 5 points for basic export, 0 points if export is not implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a complete signature validation system?",
-      "description": "Assess if the plugin includes signature validation features such as minimum stroke count, drawing area coverage percentage, or time-based validity checks. Verify if appropriate feedback is provided when signatures don't meet requirements. 10 points for comprehensive validation system, 5 points for basic checks, 0 points if validation is missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser compatibility issues, touch/mouse event differences, canvas context loss recovery, etc.) and provide fallbacks 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. Line smoothing algorithms 2. Undo/redo functionality 3. Signature replay/animation capability 4. Automatic signature positioning/scaling). 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 event listeners or drawing functions 2. Unnecessary canvas redraws that affect performance 3. Over-complicated algorithms for simple tasks. 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 drawing logic/UI/data processing layers), encapsulation as a proper plugin/component, and configuration options. Deduct 5 points if global namespace pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the plugin lacks proper documentation or API reference. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the signature pad design follows modern interface principles: 1) Clean, bordered signature area with visual feedback 2) Clear indication of active state and boundaries 3) Professional styling consistent with form elements. Deduct 3 points for poor visual indication of the signature area, 5 points for inconsistent styling with surrounding form elements, and 5 points for lack of visual feedback during signing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the drawing experience feels natural and responsive: 1) Line rendering delay ≤ 16ms (60fps) 2) No visible lag between pen/mouse movement and line appearance 3) Proper handling of fast movements without skipping. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag during drawing, 3 points for stroke discontinuity during fast movements, and 5 points for poor mobile touch experience. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}