@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/web_applications-communication/html-text-to-speech-with-rich-voice-features.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 398,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you generate is executable. Write an HTML text-to-speech program that categorizes voices by language, with a rich variety of voice options. Include support for downloading audio, pausing and resuming playback, and provide a good user interface and interaction experience. Use responsive design to adapt to different screen sizes.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the text-to-speech core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements the Web Speech API or a similar TTS library to convert text to speech. Check if the speech synthesis includes essential controls (start, pause, resume, stop) and proper error handling. Score 0 if speech synthesis is not implemented, 5 if only basic functionality exists without proper controls, and 10 if all core TTS features work correctly.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the solution categorize voices by language effectively?",
-      "description": "Check if the implementation organizes available voices by language/locale and displays them in a user-friendly way. Evaluate whether users can easily filter and select voices by language group. Deduct 5 points if languages are not categorized at all, 3 points if categorization exists but is difficult to navigate. Full score requires clear language grouping with proper localized display names.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is voice variety and selection implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Review if the code properly retrieves all available system voices and provides sufficient details about each voice (name, language, gender if available). Check if the selection mechanism allows easy switching between voices with immediate feedback. Deduct 5 points if voice options are limited without technical reason, 3 points if voice details are insufficient for informed selection.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is audio download functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes a working mechanism to download the synthesized speech as an audio file (typically MP3 or WAV). Check if it handles longer texts by providing progress indicators during conversion and if filenames are appropriate. Deduct 5 points if download sometimes fails on longer texts, 3 points if the download exists but without proper file naming or format options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported voices, browser compatibility issues, network interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Visualizing speech with waveforms 2. Speech rate/pitch adjustment sliders 3. Saving favorite voice settings 4. Text preprocessing for better pronunciation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple audio processing chains) 2. Function modules unrelated to text-to-speech (e.g., a built-in video player) 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 TTS logic/UI components/audio processing), error handling coverage, and cross-browser compatibility. 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 addressed. 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 responsive design properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interface adapts smoothly to different screen sizes: 1) Controls remain accessible and usable on mobile devices 2) No horizontal scrolling on standard screen sizes 3) Media queries properly handle breakpoints for desktop, tablet, and mobile. Deduct 5 points for each major responsive failure (e.g., unusable on mobile), 3 points for layout shifts during resize, and 3 points for touch targets smaller than 44px on mobile. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/implement-sso-page-auth-automatic-login-vue-router-vuex.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1158,
-  "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. Implement single sign-on (SSO), page authentication, and automatic login functionality based on Vue Router + Vuex.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the SSO authentication system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of the Single Sign-On system. Check if it includes proper token management (JWT or OAuth), cross-domain authentication handling, and secure communication protocols (HTTPS). Verify if the code includes authentication endpoints integration, token validation logic, and proper error handling for authentication failures. Score 0 if SSO isn't implemented, 5 if basic authentication is present but lacks security features, and 10 if a complete, secure SSO implementation is provided.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Vue Router authentication guard mechanism comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of route guards (beforeEach, beforeResolve, etc.) to protect routes requiring authentication. Check if the code implements proper redirection logic for unauthenticated access attempts, handles role-based access control, and preserves the original navigation target after successful authentication. The implementation should prevent direct URL access to protected routes. Deduct 5 points if only basic route protection exists without proper redirection, 3 points if role-based permissions are missing. Full score for a complete navigation guard system with proper meta fields in route definitions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the automatic login functionality correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements persistent authentication through secure storage mechanisms (localStorage, cookies with proper flags, etc.). Verify the presence of token refresh logic, automatic login on page reload/revisit, and proper session timeout handling. The implementation should include initial auth state detection on application start. Deduct 5 points if token storage is insecure, 3 points if refresh tokens are not implemented, and 3 points if session expiration handling is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the Vuex state management for authentication well-designed?",
-      "description": "Review the Vuex store implementation for authentication. Check if it includes proper authentication state management (user info, token storage, authentication status), dedicated mutations/actions for login/logout operations, and proper error state handling. Verify that the store integrates with the Vue Router for protected route navigation. Deduct 5 points if state management is incomplete, 3 points if authentication actions lack proper error handling, and 3 points if the store doesn't properly persist authentication state. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common authentication edge cases (token expiration during active use, network errors during authentication, concurrent login attempts, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if error boundaries exist to prevent authentication failures from crashing the application. Code with strong robustness should handle these scenarios elegantly, 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 authentication experience (e.g., 1. Biometric authentication integration 2. Progressive authentication levels based on activity sensitivity 3. Transparent background token refresh without disrupting user experience). 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 authentication implementations (e.g., multiple token validation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to authentication (e.g., excessive analytics in auth flow) 3. Unnecessary state updates that affect performance (e.g., excessive Vuex commits during authentication). 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 authentication services/store modules/UI components), unit test coverage for authentication logic, and proper code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or authentication logic is not properly encapsulated; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if proper security practices for authentication are not followed (e.g., storing sensitive data in plain text). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the authentication UI meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the authentication-related interfaces follow modern design principles: 1) Clean and focused login forms (minimal distractions) 2) Proper visual feedback for authentication states (loading, errors, success) 3) Professional form validation with clear error messages. Deduct 3 points for cluttered authentication forms, 5 points for confusing error messages, and 5 points for inconsistent visual feedback during authentication flows. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the authentication user experience smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the authentication flow conforms to user expectations: 1) Login process completable within 3 steps maximum 2) Authentication state transitions are visually clear without jarring redirects 3) Appropriate loading indicators during authentication operations. Deduct 5 points for authentication flows requiring excessive steps, 3 points for abrupt page transitions during login/logout, and 5 points for missing feedback during authentication processes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/intelligent-email-template-generator-with-ab-testing.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 686,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable and displayable. Build an intelligent email template generator that supports variable interpolation (such as {name}), conditional logic blocks, and multi-topic A/B testing. Requirements include providing a visual editing interface, sending record tracking, and open rate statistics with chart displays.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the email template generator core functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements variable interpolation (e.g., {name}, {company}), conditional logic blocks (if-else statements for content customization), and template storage/retrieval. Score 0 if the core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic interpolation is implemented, and 10 if all required template features (interpolation, conditionals, and multi-topic A/B testing logic) are fully functional.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the visual editing interface well-designed and functional?",
-      "description": "Check if the interface provides intuitive WYSIWYG editing capabilities, with clear separation between editing mode and preview mode. Verify that users can easily insert variables, add conditional blocks, and set up A/B testing variants. Deduct 5 points if drag-and-drop functionality is missing, 3 points if real-time preview isn't available, and 2 points if the UI doesn't provide clear visual indicators for dynamic elements (variables, conditionals). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the A/B testing mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a complete A/B testing system that can randomly select content variants for different recipients, track which variant was sent to whom, and analyze performance differences. Check for proper audience segmentation capabilities and statistical significance calculation. Deduct 5 points if variant distribution isn't randomized properly, and 5 points if there's no mechanism to declare a winning variant. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the email tracking and analytics features functioning?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system can track email opens, link clicks, and display this data in charts/graphs with proper visualization. Verify that tracking pixels/codes are correctly implemented, and data collection respects privacy regulations. Check if the analytics dashboard provides meaningful metrics (open rates, click rates, conversion rates). Deduct 5 points if tracking implementation has security flaws, and 5 points if visualization lacks filtering or comparison capabilities. 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 (such as missing variables, malformed templates, large data sets, concurrent users) and provides friendly error handling with appropriate feedback. Code with strong robustness should validate all inputs, handle template parsing exceptions gracefully, and implement appropriate timeouts. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for partial implementation, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted content suggestions 2. Sentiment analysis of email content 3. Automated send-time optimization based on recipient behavior 4. Responsive preview across multiple device types). 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 template engines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to email generation (e.g., a built-in social media manager) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations in the dashboard). 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 template engine/UI/analytics layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper dependency management and secure handling of email content (sanitization, encoding). 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). Check if the template editor provides clear visual hierarchy and if the analytics dashboard presents data clearly without visual clutter. 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) Template editor updates preview within 500ms 2) Transition animations controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback when saving templates or running A/B tests. Assess if the interface provides appropriate loading states when fetching analytics data or sending test emails. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual stutter during template editing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/java-wechat-chat-window-ui.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 427,
-  "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. Create a window in Java 1.8 that resembles a WeChat chat window. It should look nice and match the recent WeChat interface appearance.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core WeChat chat window UI layout properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a proper layout resembling the WeChat chat window, including the main conversation area, input area, message bubbles, and navigation elements. Score 0 if the basic layout is missing, 5 if only a basic structure is implemented, and 10 if the layout closely resembles the authentic WeChat interface with proper proportions and organization.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the WeChat-specific UI components accurately represented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes accurate representations of WeChat's distinctive UI elements such as green/white message bubbles with proper rounded corners, profile pictures, timestamps, message status indicators, and emoji support. Deduct 2 points for each major WeChat UI component missing, and 1 point for each inaccurate styling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the navigation and control system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements WeChat's navigation system including back button, menu options, and navigation between different sections (chats, contacts, discover, me). Evaluate if proper listeners and event handling are implemented for these controls. Score 0 if navigation is missing, 5 if basic navigation exists but lacks some elements, and 10 if the complete navigation system is fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the chat functionality demonstrations implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code demonstrates basic chat functionalities like sending messages, displaying message history, showing typing indicators, and message timestamps. Deduct 3 points if sending/receiving messages isn't functional, 2 points if message history isn't persistent within the session, and 2 points if timestamps or read receipts are missing. 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 empty messages, window resizing, very long messages, and special characters) and provide friendly error handling. 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. Message animation effects 2. Dark mode support 3. Custom themes 4. Voice message simulation). 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 handle messages) 2. Function modules unrelated to WeChat chat (e.g., unnecessary games or utilities) 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/data layers), proper Java conventions, design patterns, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or MVC/MVP patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if proper OOP principles aren't followed. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows WeChat's design language: 1) Correct color scheme (main WeChat green #7BB32E, background gray #EBEBEB, etc.) 2) Proper layout spacing and alignment 3) Professional font system (matching WeChat's typography). Deduct 3 points for each visual inconsistency with WeChat's design, 5 points for incorrect color palette, and 5 points for improper spacing or alignment. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the UI interactions match WeChat's behavior: 1) Immediate message sending feedback 2) Smooth message bubble animations 3) Responsive controls with appropriate hover/click effects. Deduct 3 points for each laggy animation, 3 points for missing interaction feedback, and 5 points for jerky scrolling or unresponsive UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/livekit-vue3-audio-video-conferencing.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 297,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Develop a web-based audio and video conferencing software using LiveKit with Vue 3.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the LiveKit integration properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements LiveKit SDK integration with Vue 3, including proper initialization, room connection, token handling, and participant management. Score 0 if LiveKit is not implemented at all, 5 if basic connection is established but with issues, and 10 if the integration follows LiveKit best practices with proper error handling and configuration.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is real-time audio/video communication functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the application implements core audio/video features: audio/video toggling, device selection, participant grid view, screen sharing, and audio level indicators. Deduct 2 points for each missing core feature. Evaluate if the application handles camera/microphone permissions properly and provides fallback mechanisms when devices are unavailable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the Vue 3 architecture properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code leverages Vue 3's Composition API effectively, using reactive state management, computed properties, and lifecycle hooks appropriately. Check for proper component structure, state isolation, and event handling patterns. Deduct 5 points if using outdated Vue 2 patterns, 3 points if component composition is chaotic, and 5 points if reactive primitives are misused. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are advanced LiveKit features implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess implementation of advanced LiveKit features such as: adaptive streaming quality based on network conditions, simulcast support, connection quality indicators, server-side recording options, and breakout room functionality. Award 2 points for each advanced feature properly implemented (maximum 10 points). Implementation should follow LiveKit's recommended architectural patterns.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, device permission denials, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI background noise suppression 2. Virtual backgrounds with blur option 3. Real-time transcription or translation). 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 handle participant state) 2. Function modules unrelated to conferencing (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that impact video quality). 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/API layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/login-page-image-left-responsive-layout.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 771,
-  "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 purposes. Help me create a login page with an image on the left side and login information on the right side, with responsive layout.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic login page structure correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the HTML structure properly divides the page into left (image) and right (login form) sections. Check for appropriate semantic tags (header, main, form, etc.) and a logical DOM hierarchy. Score 0 if the basic two-column layout is missing, 5 if the layout exists but has structural issues, and 10 for a clean, semantic implementation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the responsive layout properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the layout adjusts appropriately across different screen sizes (mobile, tablet, desktop). Check for media queries that transform the side-by-side layout to a stacked layout on smaller screens. Score 0 if no responsive features exist, 5 if basic responsiveness is implemented but with breakpoint issues, and 10 for a fully fluid responsive design with appropriate breakpoints (typically 768px, 992px, 1200px).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the login form complete with proper validation?",
-      "description": "Check if the form includes all necessary elements: username/email field, password field with masking, remember me option, login button, and possibly forgot password/register links. Verify client-side validation for required fields, email format, and password complexity. Deduct 3 points for each missing validation feature, 5 points if the form is incomplete. Full score for comprehensive validation with helpful error messages.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the image implementation optimized?",
-      "description": "Assess if the image is properly implemented with responsive techniques (max-width, object-fit), alternative text for accessibility, and loading optimization (lazy loading, appropriate format like WebP). Check if it maintains proper aspect ratio across screen sizes. Deduct 3 points if the image is not responsive, 3 points for missing alt text, 4 points for unoptimized formats/sizes that would affect page load performance.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as form submission failures, image loading errors, browser compatibility issues) 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. Password strength indicator 2. Social login options 3. Interactive animations/transitions 4. Dark/light mode toggle). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant CSS rules or JavaScript functions 2. Unnecessary libraries for simple functionality 3. Overly complex animations that affect performance or usability. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review code organization (separation of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript), use of CSS methodologies (BEM, SMACSS), code reusability, and browser compatibility. Deduct 5 points for inline styles or scripts; deduct 5 points if the code isn't modular or lacks comments; deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for cross-browser compatibility. 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) Form input feedback (focus states, validation messages) 2) Button hover/active states 3) Form submission feedback. Deduct 5 points for missing input focus states, 3 points for lack of hover effects on clickable elements, and 5 points for no visual feedback during form submission. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/login-registration-component-with-styling.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1660,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you produce is executable for demonstration purposes. Please write a login/registration component for me with refined styling, which can include a background image and the ability to switch between login and registration forms.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the login/registration component fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the component implements complete login and registration functionality with the ability to switch between forms. Validate that form fields include proper input validation (email format, password strength, etc.). Score 0 if core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic form submission is implemented without validation, and 10 if both login and registration forms are complete with comprehensive validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is form validation properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of client-side validation including: required field checks, email format validation, password strength requirements, and instant feedback on validation errors. Deduct 3 points if validation only happens on submission rather than in real-time; deduct 5 points if validation is minimal or easily bypassed; deduct 5 points if there's no visual feedback for validation errors. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the form switching mechanism implemented smoothly?",
-      "description": "Check if the component allows users to switch between login and registration forms without page reload, with smooth transitions. Evaluate whether the state management handles the transition properly, preserving data when appropriate. Deduct 5 points if switching causes jarring UI changes; deduct 3 points if data is inappropriately lost between switches; deduct 5 points if any errors occur during switching. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the background image feature properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the component supports background images with proper responsive behavior across different screen sizes. Check for proper image optimization, loading techniques (e.g., lazy loading), and fallbacks. Deduct 3 points if the background image isn't responsive; deduct 5 points if it significantly impacts performance; deduct 3 points if there are no fallbacks for failed image loads. 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 network failures during submission, browser compatibility issues, accessibility edge cases, 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. Social login integration 2. Password strength visual indicator 3. Remember me functionality 4. Intelligent form field auto-completion 5. Dark/light mode toggle). Add 2 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 logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to login/registration (e.g., unnecessary animations or widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or heavy background effects). 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 components from validation logic), use of design patterns (e.g., controlled components, custom hooks), proper event handling, and clean code principles. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high; deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns. 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) Proper contrast for readability. 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) Form submission feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 200-300ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for keyboard navigation 4) Proper loading states during submissions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring animations, and 5 points for hard-to-find form elements or buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/media-sharing-annotation-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 808,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the generated code is executable whenever possible.\n1. Create a system that allows uploading videos and photos, with the ability to add text annotations\n2. Enable sharing of uploaded videos and photos with others, automatically hiding crucial information during the sharing process\n3. Allow multiple users to simultaneously manage uploaded photos and videos, and modify the annotation information",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a robust file upload system that handles both videos and photos. Check for file type validation, size limits, progress indicators, and proper error handling. Score 0 if basic upload functionality is missing, 5 if only basic uploads work without validation, and 10 if it includes comprehensive upload features including chunked uploads for large videos, retry mechanisms, and format conversion capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the text annotation functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the annotation system's capabilities for both videos and photos. For videos, check if it supports timeline-based annotations, frame-specific notes, and persistent storage of annotation data. For photos, verify region-based annotations, text formatting options, and proper positioning. Deduct 5 points if annotations cannot be edited after creation, and 3 points if annotation positioning is imprecise. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the content sharing mechanism secure and functional?",
-      "description": "Examine the sharing system for security features including permission controls, link expiration settings, and most importantly, automatic information hiding/redaction capabilities. Verify that sensitive content (faces, license plates, metadata) can be automatically detected and obscured during sharing. Deduct 5 points if sharing lacks permission settings, and 5 points if the automatic information hiding feature is absent or ineffective. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the collaborative management system implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements real-time collaboration features allowing multiple users to simultaneously manage and annotate content. Check for conflict resolution mechanisms, version control of annotations, activity logging, and role-based permissions. Deduct 5 points if the system lacks real-time updates, and 5 points if there's no conflict resolution strategy. Give 10 points if fully implemented with presence indicators showing who is currently editing what.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, concurrent edits, invalid file formats, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted content moderation 2. Automatic transcription for video annotations 3. Advanced search capabilities for annotations 4. Batch editing tools). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple separate annotation systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core requirements (e.g., a built-in game or irrelevant social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact responsiveness). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating upload/annotation/sharing logic), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}