@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/smart-spreadsheet-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 551,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code in your demonstrations. Implement a smart spreadsheet tool that supports CRUD operations on data, cell merging, formula calculations (basic mathematical functions, statistical functions, etc.), data sorting and filtering, and the ability to generate simple charts (bar charts, line charts, pie charts), with support for importing and exporting table data in Excel format.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the CRUD functionality for the spreadsheet fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements complete Create, Read, Update, and Delete operations for cells and rows/columns. Check if cell selection (single, range, multi-selection), editing (inline and formula bar), and data validation are properly implemented. Score 0 if core CRUD operations are missing, 5 if basic operations are present but lack advanced features, and 10 if all operations including keyboard navigation and shortcuts are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are cell merging and formatting capabilities properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code supports merging/unmerging cells with proper content handling, and if basic formatting options (font styles, colors, borders, alignment, etc.) are available. Verify that merged cells maintain their integrity when sorting or when rows/columns are inserted/deleted. Deduct 5 points if merged cells show rendering issues, 3 points if formatting options are limited, and 2 points if undo/redo for these operations is not supported. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the formula calculation system work correctly?",
-      "description": "Verify the implementation of formula evaluation engine that should support basic math operations (+, -, *, /), statistical functions (SUM, AVERAGE, COUNT, MIN, MAX), logical functions (IF), and cell references. Test for circular reference detection and error handling. Deduct 3 points if advanced functions are missing, 5 points if cell references don't update properly when rows/columns change, and 5 points if formula recalculation is not automatic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are data sorting and filtering functionalities effective?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of multi-column sorting (ascending/descending) and filtering capabilities based on various criteria (text, numbers, dates). Check if sorting/filtering maintains the integrity of formulas and merged cells. Deduct 5 points if only basic single-column sorting is available, 3 points if custom filtering options are missing, and 3 points if the UI doesn't provide visual feedback for active filters. 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 formulas, out-of-bounds references, data type mismatches, large datasets) 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. Auto-formatting of recognized data types 2. Smart column width adjustment 3. Template gallery for common spreadsheet layouts 4. Conditional formatting with data visualization). 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 sorting mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to spreadsheet functionality (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive rendering of inactive cells). 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 model/view/controller layers), unit test coverage, and performance optimization for large datasets. 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 optimizations for handling large spreadsheets (virtual scrolling, lazy loading). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional spreadsheet design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows industry-standard spreadsheet interfaces: 1) Clear grid lines and cell indicators 2) Intuitive formula bar and cell reference visualization 3) Professional toolbar layout with logical grouping of functions. Deduct 3 points for non-standard cell navigation, 5 points for confusing formula editing interface, and 5 points for poorly organized toolbars/menus. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Are the charting features and import/export capabilities comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the implementation includes: 1) Multiple chart types (bar, line, pie) with proper data mapping 2) Chart customization options (titles, legends, colors) 3) Excel-compatible import/export functionality. Deduct 5 points if charts don't update dynamically with data changes, 3 points for limited chart customization, and 5 points if import/export fails to preserve formulas or formatting. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/tauri-clock-application-development.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 312,
-  "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. Develop a clock application using Tauri.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core clock functionality completely implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements all essential clock features: current time display with hours, minutes, seconds, and possibly milliseconds; proper time zone handling; and accurate time updates (ideally using requestAnimationFrame for smooth UI updates rather than setInterval). Score 0 if core time display is missing, 5 if basic functionality exists but has accuracy issues, and 10 if all core clock features are fully implemented with high precision.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Tauri integration properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly leverages Tauri APIs for native functionality including window management, OS integration, and possibly system tray features. Check for proper initialization of Tauri in the project structure (correct tauri.conf.json configuration, appropriate cargo dependencies). Deduct 5 points if essential Tauri features aren't used, 3 points if permissions aren't properly configured. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are additional clock features implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the implementation includes extended functionality like multiple time zones, alarms/timers, stopwatch, world clock, or countdown features. Each well-implemented additional feature is worth 2-3 points. Deduct points if these features are poorly implemented or contain bugs. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there cross-platform compatibility?",
-      "description": "Check if the code properly handles platform-specific considerations for Windows, macOS, and Linux through Tauri's APIs. Review whether the configuration accounts for different operating system behaviors, such as app lifecycle, notifications, and system tray integration. Deduct 5 points if the app works on only one platform, and 3 points if minor platform-specific issues exist. 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 system time changes, daylight saving transitions, permission denials, or resource constraints) 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. Customizable clock faces/themes 2. Desktop widget mode with transparency 3. Time synchronization with atomic clock servers). 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 timer implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to clock functionality (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that consume battery). 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 time logic/view/platform-specific code), 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 properly configured for Tauri. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/to-do-item-recorder-with-categories-dates-reminders.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1267,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that any code you generate is executable. Write a computer program that records to-do items, with requirements including category management, date setting, and automatic reminders.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core to-do item management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements CRUD operations for to-do items (create, read, update, delete). Check if each to-do item contains essential properties like title, description, status, and if the system supports filtering and sorting. Score 0 if core operations are missing, 5 if basic operations are implemented, and 10 if advanced features like bulk operations and undo functionality are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the category management system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a robust category system that allows users to create, edit, delete categories and assign to-do items to multiple categories. Check for category hierarchy support and category-based filtering/sorting. Deduct 3 points if categories are hardcoded, 5 points if items can only belong to one category, and 5 points if category operations aren't persistent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the date setting and deadline functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the program allows setting dates for to-do items with proper date validation, timezone handling, and recurring tasks support. Verify if the interface includes a date picker or similar intuitive input method. Deduct 3 points if date validation is missing, 3 points if timezone issues exist, and 5 points if recurring tasks aren't supported. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the automatic reminder system effectively implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes a functioning reminder system that can trigger notifications based on due dates. Check for customizable reminder settings (e.g., time before deadline), notification methods (e.g., pop-up, email), and background process handling. Deduct 5 points if reminders don't work when the app is closed, 3 points if customization options are limited, and 5 points if notifications aren't properly implemented. 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 issues for cloud sync, database corruption, 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. Natural language processing for quick entry 2. Smart prioritization based on user patterns 3. Integration with calendar systems or third-party apps). 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 handling methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to to-do management (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 data model/view/controller layers), unit test coverage, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error handling or logging system. 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) Smooth transitions when adding/completing tasks 3) Clear visual focus guidance for priority items. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy animations during list scrolling, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation between different views (categories, calendar, etc.). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/to-do-list-mini-program-for-boyfriend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1042,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code whenever possible. To-do list mini-program for boyfriend",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core to-do list functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements complete CRUD operations (Create, Read, Update, Delete) for to-do items through HTML/JavaScript, including task categorization, priority settings, due date management, and completion status tracking. Score 0 if basic add/delete functions are missing, 5 if only simple task management is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive task management with filtering, sorting, and search capabilities are fully included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the data persistence and synchronization mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes reliable data storage (localStorage/IndexedDB or cloud sync), automatic save functionality, and data backup mechanisms. Evaluate if there's real-time synchronization across devices and offline capability. Deduct 5 points if data loss occurs on page refresh, and 3 points if no offline storage is handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are personalized features and relationship-focused elements designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the mini-program includes boyfriend-specific customization features such as shared task lists, couple reminders, anniversary tracking, or romantic task categories. Check if there are personalized themes, custom notification sounds, or partner interaction features. Deduct 5 points if generic templates are used without personalization. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the notification and reminder system comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes a complete notification system with multiple reminder types (browser notifications, visual alerts, sound alerts), customizable reminder intervals, and smart scheduling. Evaluate if there are different notification strategies for different task priorities. Deduct 5 points if no notification system exists, and 3 points if notifications don't work across different browsers. Give 10 points if fully implemented with cross-platform compatibility.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input, storage quota exceeded, network failures, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the romantic experience (e.g., 1. Mood-based task suggestions 2. Achievement badges for completed tasks 3. Love note attachments to tasks 4. Progress sharing with partner 5. Gamification elements). 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 task creation interfaces) 2. Function modules unrelated to to-do management (e.g., built-in games or unrelated widgets) 3. Overly complex animations that affect usability. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core to-do 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 layer/business logic/presentation layer), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no design patterns are used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no error handling or logging mechanisms exist. 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 UI principles: 1) Harmonious color matching suitable for daily use (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Consistent iconography and visual hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor color contrast or readability issues, and 5 points for inconsistent design patterns. 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/tap feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animations duration controlled between 200-400ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance and intuitive gesture support 4) Smooth task completion animations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy interactions during rapid task management, and 5 points for unclear navigation or hard-to-find essential functions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/to-do-list-mini-program-in-english.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1278,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the code you generate is executable. Provide me with a to-do list mini program developed in English.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic CRUD functionality of the to-do list properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code accurately implements the four basic operations (Create, Read, Update, Delete) for to-do items. The creation function should support adding new tasks with at least title and status properties. The read function should display all tasks clearly. The update function should allow modification of task properties (status, title, etc.). The delete function should remove tasks completely. Score 0 if core CRUD functionality is missing, 5 if only partial functionality works, 10 if all operations are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the task prioritization and categorization system included?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the to-do list allows users to prioritize tasks (e.g., high, medium, low) and categorize them (e.g., work, personal, shopping). Check if the tasks can be sorted or filtered based on these attributes. Deduct 5 points if prioritization is missing, 3 points if categorization is missing, and 5 points if sorting/filtering functionality is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are persistent storage and data synchronization implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the application implements data persistence using localStorage, IndexedDB, or a backend database. Verify if the data survives page refreshes and browser restarts. For multi-device synchronization, check if a mechanism is implemented to handle data conflicts. Deduct 5 points if no persistence is implemented, 3 points if only temporary storage is used, and 5 points if no synchronization mechanism exists. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a task scheduling and notification system?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the to-do list includes date/time scheduling for tasks with due dates and reminder functionality. Check if the application can send notifications for upcoming tasks. Verify if recurring tasks can be set up (daily, weekly, monthly). Deduct 3 points if scheduling is missing, 3 points if notification capability is absent, and 4 points if recurring tasks aren't supported. 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 input, network interruption, data corruption, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for input validation, error handling, and graceful degradation when features aren't available. 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. Productivity statistics/analytics 2. Natural language input for quick task creation 3. Task templates for common activities 4. Gamification elements like streaks or achievements). 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 ways to delete tasks) 2. Function modules unrelated to to-do list management (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 data/view/controller layers), code organization, and maintainability. Check for consistent naming conventions, appropriate comments, and clean code 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 there are no tests or documentation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy between completed and pending tasks. 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) Immediate visual feedback when marking tasks complete 2) Smooth transitions when adding/removing tasks 3) Clear visual focus guidance 4) Intuitive drag-and-drop for reordering tasks. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for janky animations during interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/to-do-reminder-interface-with-time-limits.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 869,
-  "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. Design a to-do reminder interface that includes processing time limits.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core to-do reminder functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements the essential features of a to-do list: adding tasks, marking them as complete, deleting tasks, and setting time limits/deadlines. Score 0 if the core functions are missing, 5 if only basic functionality exists, and 10 if all core features with proper state management are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the time limit functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that the time limit feature includes deadline setting, visual countdown indicators, overdue status handling, and reminders. Deduct 3 points if deadline validation is missing, 3 points if there's no visual differentiation between upcoming, urgent and overdue tasks, and 4 points if notification/reminder functionality is absent. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the data persistence mechanism implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the application saves to-do items between sessions (using localStorage, IndexedDB, or other storage methods). Check if it handles storage errors gracefully and includes data validation before storage. Deduct 5 points if no persistence is implemented, 3 points if data validation is missing, 2 points if there's no error handling for storage operations. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is filtering and sorting functionality provided?",
-      "description": "Check whether the interface allows users to filter tasks by status (completed/pending), sort by priority or deadline, and supports search functionality. Deduct 3 points if filtering is missing, 3 points if sorting options are limited, and 4 points if there's no search capability. 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 date inputs, duplicate tasks, browser storage 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. Task prioritization with visual indicators 2. Recurring task support 3. Drag-and-drop task organization 4. Progress tracking for complex tasks). 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 functions (e.g., multiple task updating mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to to-do management (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 task data/view/controller layers), event delegation patterns, and code reusability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 2 points if there's no code organization or commenting. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for task priority and deadlines. 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 for time-sensitive tasks. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions when manipulating tasks, and 5 points for confusing interactions when setting time limits. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/typescript-canvas-rich-text-editor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1476,
-  "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 when possible. Help me implement a high-performance canvas-based rich text editor using TypeScript class style.\n\nThe editor should have the following features: support for multiple lines, text selection, font styles (bold, italic, underline, strikethrough), font size and color, text alignment (left, center, right, justified), line height and letter spacing, superscript and subscript, lists (ordered and unordered), indentation and spacing, support for multi-step undo and redo operations, support for copy, cut and paste (including pasting content from Word, websites and other sources while clearing redundant formatting), and data saved in JSON format that is space-efficient.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the canvas-based text rendering system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements a canvas-based text rendering engine that handles font metrics, text measurement, and proper text layout. Check if it correctly renders different styles (bold, italic, underline, strikethrough) with proper weight and appearance. Score 0 if core text rendering is missing, 5 if basic rendering works but with visual glitches, and 10 if text renders accurately with all required styles.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is text selection functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the text selection mechanism. It should include: 1) Proper highlighting of selected text 2) Accurate cursor positioning 3) Word/paragraph selection with double/triple clicks 4) Keyboard navigation with modifiers (Shift+arrows). Deduct 3 points if selection highlighting has rendering issues, 3 points if keyboard selection is missing, and 4 points if selection across styling boundaries fails. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are all required text styling features implemented?",
-      "description": "Check for complete implementation of: font styles (bold, italic, underline, strikethrough), font size/color, text alignment (left, center, right, justified), line height, letter spacing, superscript/subscript, and lists (ordered/unordered). For each missing feature deduct 1 point. For features with partial implementation (e.g., works visually but not in the data model), deduct 0.5 points. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the undo/redo system and clipboard functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Examine the implementation of multi-step undo/redo operations and clipboard functions. Check that operations are properly batched for logical editing actions. For clipboard, verify proper handling of internal copying/pasting and external content with format cleaning (from Word, websites). Deduct 3 points for missing undo/redo, 3 points for basic clipboard issues, and 4 points if format cleaning from external sources is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common edge cases (very long text, unusual Unicode characters, rapid input, large paste operations, etc.) and provide appropriate error handling or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should handle these edge cases effectively, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if edge cases crash the editor, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time collaboration capability 2. Auto-save with version history 3. Markdown shortcuts 4. Performance optimizations for large documents). 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 functions (e.g., multiple selection models) 2. Feature modules unrelated to rich text editing (e.g., built-in image editing) 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 TypeScript class design (proper use of interfaces, access modifiers, generics), modular architecture (separation of rendering/model/controller), code reusability, and test coverage. Deduct 3 points if TypeScript features are underutilized; deduct 3 points if the architecture lacks clear separation of concerns; deduct 4 points if there's significant code duplication or poor maintainability. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the editor interface meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the editor follows modern design principles: 1) Clean, distraction-free editing area 2) Proper spacing between lines and paragraphs 3) Consistent cursor behavior and selection highlighting 4) Appropriate toolbar layout with clear iconography. Deduct 3 points for poor visual hierarchy, 3 points for inconsistent styling, and 4 points for cluttered interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the editor performance optimized?",
-      "description": "Judge the performance characteristics: 1) Input latency ≤ 16ms (60fps) 2) Efficient canvas redrawing strategies (partial updates vs. full redraws) 3) Memory management for large documents 4) JSON serialization efficiency. Deduct 3 points if typing shows noticeable lag, 3 points if scrolling large documents is jerky, and 4 points if memory usage grows uncontrollably with document size. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/utility_tools-daily_office_tasks/uni-app-vue2-clock-in-page.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1652,
-  "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 write a clock-in page using uni-app vue2.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the uni-app clock-in core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements clock-in/clock-out functionality through uni-app framework, including time recording, attendance status management, and local storage persistence. Score 0 if core clock-in logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic time recording is present, and 10 if complete attendance tracking with validation is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Vue2 component architecture properly structured?",
-      "description": "Check whether the Vue2 implementation follows proper component lifecycle management, data binding, and state management patterns. Evaluate if uni-app specific APIs (uni.getLocation, uni.getStorage, etc.) are correctly integrated. Deduct 5 points if component communication is poorly implemented, and 3 points if lifecycle hooks are misused. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are location-based attendance and data persistence implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system includes GPS location verification for clock-in validity, local data storage using uni.setStorage, and offline capability. Check if attendance records are properly structured and retrievable. Deduct 5 points if location services are not integrated, 3 points if data persistence is unreliable. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is comprehensive attendance management and history tracking constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete attendance lifecycle management, including daily/weekly/monthly attendance summaries, history viewing, and statistical analysis. Deduct 5 points if attendance history is not properly displayed, and 3 points if statistical calculations are missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with export functionality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as GPS failure, storage quota exceeded, network interruption, permission denial, 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. Facial recognition for identity verification 2. Automatic work schedule detection 3. Team attendance leaderboard 4. Weather-based attendance reminders). 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 time calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to attendance (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animation libraries). 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 business logic/components/utils), proper use of uni-app conventions, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or Vue2 best practices are not followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if uni-app specific optimizations are ignored. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern mobile design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching suitable for work environment (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing following mobile design guidelines (touch targets ≥ 44px) 3) Professional typography system (body font size ≥ 14px for mobile readability). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for unprofessional color schemes, and 5 points for poor mobile layout adaptation. 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 mobile interaction patterns: 1) Touch feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Page transition animations optimized for mobile performance 3) Clear visual hierarchy and navigation flow 4) Proper handling of mobile-specific interactions (swipe, pull-to-refresh). Deduct 5 points for each operation without proper mobile feedback, 3 points for laggy animations on mid-range devices, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Utility Tools-Daily Office Tasks",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}