@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/web_applications-communication/mini-program-online-customer-service.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 724,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable and demonstrable. Based on the previous response, please help write a set of sample code including front-end interface (WXML\\WXSS\\JS) and cloud function services to implement online customer service capabilities for a mini program.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the customer service interface fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the WXML/WXSS code creates a professional customer service interface with message input area, message display area, and service status indicators. Score 0 if the core UI components are missing, 5 if basic elements exist but lack proper styling, and 10 if the interface is complete with responsive design and appropriate placeholder states.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the real-time messaging function properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the message sending/receiving logic using either WebSocket or cloud database subscription. Check for message typing indicators, read receipts, and proper message formatting. Deduct 5 points if there's no message timestamp display, 3 points if media messages aren't supported, and 3 points if there's no offline message handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are cloud functions correctly configured for customer service operations?",
-      "description": "Check whether cloud functions are properly implemented for message storage, user authentication, and service routing. Evaluate if the cloud functions follow proper security practices and include error handling. Deduct 5 points if there's no rate limiting implementation, 3 points if there's no validation of message content, and 3 points if logs/analytics are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a complete customer service workflow management system?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes service queue management, automatic/manual service assignment, conversation history persistence, and session state management (active/waiting/closed). Deduct 5 points if there's no priority handling mechanism, 3 points if conversation continuity is broken after app restart, and 5 points if there's no service quality feedback collection. 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 interruption, message delivery failure, service unavailability, 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-powered auto-replies 2. Quick response templates 3. Rich media message support like voice/image/location 4. Customer satisfaction rating system). 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 implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple message sending methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to customer service (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in conversation UI). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/network layers), component reusability, and proper use of mini program lifecycle hooks. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if performance optimizations are missing (e.g., virtual list for long conversations). 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) Consistent with WeChat's design language 2) Proper use of spacing and layout (following the 8px grid system) 3) Clear visual hierarchy between customer and agent messages. Deduct 3 points for each obvious visual inconsistency, 5 points for poor readability of messages, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation. 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 user expectations: 1) Message sending feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth scrolling and message transitions 3) Clear loading states during operations. Deduct 5 points for laggy message list scrolling, 3 points for missing loading indicators during network operations, and 5 points for jerky transitions between different states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/multi-user-online-whiteboard-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 617,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. \n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I'll provide you with a software development requirement description, and you should generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nImplement a multi-user online whiteboard collaboration tool that supports real-time drawing, adding notes, and uploading images. All users can simultaneously draw on the whiteboard, with each user's cursor position and operations synchronized in real-time to other users. Provide various drawing tools such as pencil, line, arrow, rectangle, etc., as well as text box and sticky note functions. Implement infinite scrolling and zooming capabilities for the whiteboard area. Add a user list displaying all current online collaborators and distinguish their drawing content with different colors. Support undo/redo operations, as well as whiteboard content export and sharing functions.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the real-time whiteboard drawing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a canvas-based drawing system with various tools (pencil, line, arrow, rectangle). Check if the drawing operations are properly captured, rendered, and have consistent behavior across different browsers. Examine if the drawing system supports different stroke widths, colors, and opacity settings. Score 0 if basic drawing functionality is missing, 5 if only basic pencil tool is implemented, and 10 if all specified drawing tools are fully functional with proper options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the multi-user collaboration system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the real-time synchronization mechanism (WebSocket or similar technology), checking if user actions are properly broadcast to other connected users. Examine if the system handles concurrent edits appropriately, maintains consistency across clients, and includes conflict resolution. Verify if cursor positions are tracked and displayed for all users. Deduct 5 points if synchronization has noticeable lag (>300ms), 3 points if cursor tracking is missing, and 3 points if conflicts aren't handled properly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the text and image integration features implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes functionality for adding text boxes, sticky notes, and uploading/embedding images on the whiteboard. Verify that text elements are editable, support formatting, and can be repositioned. For images, check if upload, resize, and repositioning are supported. Deduct 4 points if text formatting is missing, 3 points if image upload doesn't handle different file formats, and 3 points if positioning/resizing of elements is buggy. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the infinite canvas with zoom and pan functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the whiteboard supports infinite scrolling in all directions, smooth zooming (in/out), and easy panning. Check if the implementation maintains drawing quality at different zoom levels and if performance remains smooth when navigating large canvases. Verify if there are navigation aids (e.g., mini-map, zoom percentage indicator). Deduct 4 points if zooming is jerky or pixelated, 3 points if panning has performance issues, and 3 points if the canvas size is limited. 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 interruption, concurrent edits collision, large whiteboard content, 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. AI-assisted drawing recognition 2. Advanced collaboration features like voting or attention focus 3. Templates library for common diagrams 4. Voice annotations). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple drawing libraries overlapping) 2. Function modules unrelated to whiteboard collaboration (e.g., a built-in chat system that duplicates existing communication) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down drawing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating drawing logic/UI components/networking 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) Drawing response delay ≤ 50ms 2) UI transition animation duration controlled between 200-400ms 3) Clear visual feedback for tool selection and active users. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for noticeable lag during multi-user interaction, and 5 points for poorly accessible tool selection UI. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/music-listening-webpage-jay-chou-bigbang-tara-exo.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1186,
-  "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. Help me create a webpage for listening to music by Jay Chou, BIGBANG, T-ARA, and EXO.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the music player functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements core music player features including play/pause, next/previous track, volume control, and progress bar. Check if the player can handle different audio formats and provides proper feedback during playback. Score 0 if core playback functionality is missing, 5 if only basic controls are implemented, and 10 if all essential music player features work smoothly.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the music library of specified artists properly organized?",
-      "description": "Verify that the music library contains songs from all requested artists (Jay Chou, BIGBANG, T-ARA, and EXO) and that they are properly categorized and searchable. Check if metadata like artist info, album covers, and song details are displayed. Deduct 2 points for each missing artist, 3 points if song categorization is chaotic, and 3 points if metadata is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the playlist management system implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if users can create, save, and manage custom playlists. Check for features like adding/removing songs, rearranging tracks, and saving playlist states. Verify if the system persists playlist data using localStorage or another storage method. Deduct 5 points if playlists can't be saved, 3 points if reordering isn't supported, and 3 points if there's no way to create multiple playlists. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio visualization component implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the webpage includes audio visualization features like a waveform display, spectrum analyzer, or other visual effects that respond to the music. Assess the technical implementation using Web Audio API or Canvas/SVG for visualization. Deduct 5 points if there's no visualization, 3 points if visualizations don't sync properly with music, and 2 points if visualizations negatively impact performance. 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 audio file loading errors, playback 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. Lyrics synchronization 2. Artist information popups 3. Music recommendation system 4. Theme customization based on album art). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple volume control mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to music playing (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components/audio control/data management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast 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/nodejs-chunk-file-upload-interface.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 727,
-  "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. Initialize a project and use Node.js to create a file upload interface that supports chunk uploading, with frontend uploaded files stored in the 'file' folder.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file chunking mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements file chunking on the client side, including proper slice calculation, chunk size management, and unique identifiers for each chunk. Score 0 if chunking is not implemented, 5 if basic chunking exists but with limitations (e.g., fixed chunk size that doesn't account for file size), and 10 if it implements adaptive chunking with proper error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file upload interface complete and functional?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload interface provides necessary features: file selection, progress indication, pause/resume functionality, and clear status messages. Deduct 3 points if progress indication is missing, 3 points if there's no pause/resume capability, and 4 points if error states aren't displayed to users. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the server-side chunk assembly mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the server code correctly handles receiving chunks, temporary storage, validation (MD5/hash verification), and final assembly into the complete file in the 'file' folder. Deduct 5 points if chunk verification is missing, 3 points if temporary files aren't properly managed, and 5 points if the final assembly process doesn't handle edge cases. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the implementation include proper concurrent upload handling?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code supports simultaneous upload of multiple files and concurrent chunk uploads with proper throttling mechanisms. Score 0 if concurrency isn't supported, 5 if basic concurrency exists but without throttling, and 10 if it implements intelligent throttling based on network conditions and server load.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, browser crashes, duplicate uploads, invalid files, 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. Drag-and-drop uploading 2. Automatic retry mechanism 3. Client-side file compression 4. Image preview before upload). 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 file validation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to file uploading (e.g., unnecessary authentication layers) 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 upload logic/UI/server communication), error handling patterns, and maintainability. 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 logging and debugging capabilities are insufficient. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Clean and intuitive upload interface 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Clear visual feedback during different upload stages. Deduct 3 points for cluttered interface elements, 5 points for confusing status indicators, and 5 points for poor accessibility features. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Upload button response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth progress indicators without jitter 3) Clear visual guidance during chunk uploads. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for choppy progress indicators, and 5 points for confusing state transitions between upload phases. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/online-meeting-room-video-audio-chat-app.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 569,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure that any code you generate is executable. Design an online meeting room application that supports video and audio calls. Users can turn on/off their camera and microphone, and view video streams of other participants. Include a chat window for sending text messages.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video call functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements WebRTC for peer-to-peer video connections with proper signaling, ICE candidate exchange, and SDP negotiation. Check for camera access using getUserMedia API and whether video streams are properly rendered. Score 0 if video functionality is missing, 5 if basic implementation exists but with limitations, and 10 if fully featured with fallback mechanisms and quality controls.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the audio call functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the audio implementation including microphone access, audio level visualization, noise suppression, and echo cancellation features. Check for mute/unmute toggle functionality and whether audio state is properly synchronized across participants. Deduct 5 points if audio processing features are missing, and 3 points if there's no audio fallback mechanism when video fails. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the participant management system complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes user presence detection, participant lists with status indicators, room joining/leaving protocols, and host controls (if applicable). Check for proper handling of participants unexpectedly disconnecting and reconnection logic. Deduct 5 points for missing presence update mechanisms, and 3 points if there's no visual indication of who is speaking. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the chat functionality comprehensive and integrated with the call experience?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of the text chat system including message formatting, timestamp display, read receipts, and message persistence. Check whether chat is properly synchronized with the call experience (notifications during calls, history preservation). Deduct 5 points if message synchronization is unreliable, and 3 points if chat history isn't preserved across reconnections. 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 permission denials, device switching, network fluctuations, 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. Background blur/replacement 2. Real-time transcription 3. Recording functionality 4. Screen sharing with annotation tools 5. Breakout room support). 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 ways to mute/unmute) 2. Function modules unrelated to video conferencing (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance and bandwidth (e.g., unnecessary animations during critical communications). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating media handling/UI/networking 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) Control response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indicators for mute/unmute, video on/off states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions when participants join/leave, and 5 points for confusing or inconsistent UI controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/online-voting-and-surveys.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1583,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code where possible. Please create a WeChat Mini Program based on this topic and requirements: \"Online Voting and Surveys, with features including: vote creation, questionnaire design, data statistics, result analysis, sharing and distribution, etc.\"\n(Note: I completely don't understand code meaning, I can only copy/paste and create files. Please provide complete and clear code that simply accomplishes the objective.)",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core voting system functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements the complete voting/survey workflow including creation, responses, and result viewing. Score 0 if the core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic voting is implemented without survey logic, and 10 if both voting and complex survey features (multiple choice, rating scales, open-ended questions) are fully implemented. Ensure the form validation logic is present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the questionnaire design feature comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code allows users to create customized surveys with various question types (single-choice, multiple-choice, matrix, open text, etc.). Check for drag-and-drop question reordering, question branching logic, and required/optional settings. Score 3 points for basic question types, 3 for customization options, 2 for logical flow controls, and 2 for preview functionality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are data statistics and result analysis features properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of real-time data collection, statistical calculations, and visualization components. Check for charts (pie, bar, line), percentage calculations, cross-tabulation capabilities, and data export options. Deduct 5 points if visualizations are missing, 3 points if basic calculations are incorrect, and 2 points if export functionality is absent.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the sharing and distribution mechanism effective?",
-      "description": "Assess the WeChat-specific sharing functionality including survey link generation, QR code sharing, and social sharing options. Check for the implementation of WeChat Open Graph protocol integration and custom share messages. Award 10 points for fully functional sharing with proper WeChat API integration, 5 points for basic sharing without customization options, and 0 points if sharing isn't implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases (offline submissions, partial form completion, unexpected input types, etc.) and provides appropriate error handling. Check for form validation, data sanitization, and recovery mechanisms. Score 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation only, and 0 points if no error handling exists.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Look for unexpected valuable features that enhance the mini program (e.g., 1. AI-powered question suggestions 2. Interactive result dashboards 3. Gamified survey 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. Duplicate implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation systems) 2. Features unrelated to voting/surveys (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Unnecessary animations or effects that impact performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with core functionality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review the code architecture (separation of concerns between view/model/controller), component reusability, and adherence to WeChat Mini Program development standards. Check for proper use of pages, components, and global state management. Deduct 5 points for global state mismanagement, 3 points for excessive code duplication, and 2 points for poor directory structure. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows WeChat's design guidelines with appropriate use of white space, typography, and color scheme. Look for consistent component styling, proper form element spacing, and mobile-optimized layouts. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent UI element, 5 points for non-standard form controls, and 2 points for poor responsive behavior. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the app provides immediate feedback for user actions, smooth transitions between pages, and clear loading states. Check for appropriate gestures (swipe, tap) and WeChat-specific interactions. Deduct 3 points for each interaction without feedback, 5 points for laggy transitions, and 2 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/online-whiteboard-with-realtime-sync.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 461,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable for demonstration purposes. Design an online whiteboard application where users can draw graphics in real-time, supporting synchronized content for multiple users, and offering undo and clear functions.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic canvas drawing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core drawing capability using HTML5 Canvas API, with proper event handling for mouse/touch interactions. Check for support of different drawing tools (pen, shapes, text) with configurable properties (color, thickness, opacity). Score 0 if no drawing functionality exists, 5 if only basic freehand drawing is implemented, and 10 if multiple drawing tools with customizable properties are available.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is real-time multi-user synchronization properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the WebSocket/WebRTC implementation for real-time data transmission between users. Check for optimized data transfer (sending only incremental changes rather than full canvas state), conflict resolution mechanisms, and user presence indicators. Deduct 5 points if synchronization has noticeable lag (>200ms), 3 points if there's no user cursor visibility, and 5 points if conflict handling is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are undo/redo and clear functions properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the application maintains a proper action history stack to support multi-level undo/redo operations across all drawing actions. Verify that clear functionality works correctly and is synchronized to all users. Deduct 5 points if undo history is limited to less than 10 steps, 3 points if redo functionality is missing, and 5 points if clear actions aren't properly synchronized. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there proper state management and persistence?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the application maintains whiteboard state during page refresh/reconnection, and if it provides options to save/export content in common formats (PNG, SVG, JSON). Check for auto-save functionality and session recovery. Deduct 5 points if state is lost on page refresh, 3 points if export options are limited, and 5 points if there's no auto-save 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 network interruptions, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large canvases, 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 drawing tools 2. Collaborative annotation with voice chat 3. Interactive presentation mode with pointer tools 4. Template library for common diagrams). 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 drawing functions (e.g., multiple overlapping pen tools) 2. Function modules unrelated to whiteboard collaboration (e.g., built-in games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down drawing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating drawing logic/UI/networking 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 toolbar organization (grouped by function, with clear icons). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic toolbar layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the drawing experience feels natural and responsive: 1) Drawing latency ≤ 50ms 2) Smooth rendering without jitter during rapid strokes 3) Clear visual feedback for tool selection and actions. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag when drawing, 3 points for jerky rendering on complex drawings, and 5 points for confusing tool state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/personal-website-sharing-family-friends.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1502,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Could you help me design and create a personal website homepage? It would primarily be used for sharing photos, text, and videos within a small circle of family and friends. The purpose is to maintain and strengthen connections and emotional bonds between loved ones scattered across different regions, and to accumulate and showcase information about interactive activities among family and friends.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the personal homepage core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements photo, text, and video sharing capabilities through HTML/CSS/JavaScript, including file upload handling, content display grid/list views, and basic CRUD operations for posts. Score 0 if core sharing functionality is missing, 5 if only basic text/image sharing is implemented, and 10 if multimedia sharing with proper preview and organization is fully included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the family circle interaction system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes user authentication for family members, comment/reaction systems, and privacy controls for content visibility within the circle. Evaluate if there's a proper user management system distinguishing family roles. Deduct 5 points if no user authentication exists, and 3 points if privacy controls are inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is content organization and timeline management effectively structured?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the homepage uses effective content categorization (albums, events, chronological timeline) and search/filter capabilities. Check if there's proper content archiving and easy navigation through historical posts. Deduct 5 points if content organization is chaotic or lacks categorization. Check whether memory preservation features like anniversary reminders or milestone highlighting are implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is cross-device compatibility and data persistence properly handled?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes responsive design for mobile/tablet access, local storage or cloud storage integration for content persistence, and offline viewing capabilities. Evaluate if family members can access content seamlessly across different devices. Deduct 5 points if mobile responsiveness is poor, and 3 points if data persistence mechanisms are missing. Give 10 points if fully optimized for family sharing scenarios.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as large file uploads, unsupported media formats, network interruption, 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 enhance family bonding?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes thoughtful features that strengthen family connections (e.g., 1. Automatic photo tagging and face recognition 2. Family event calendar integration 3. Memory lane random photo displays 4. Voice message attachments 5. Location-based content grouping). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple upload mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to family sharing (e.g., e-commerce components, gaming features) 3. Overly complex effects that slow down content loading (e.g., heavy 3D animations, excessive parallax effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core sharing 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 content management/UI components/data layers), performance optimization for media loading, and scalable architecture. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or component structure is poorly organized; deduct 5 points if media optimization is missing (lazy loading, compression); deduct 5 points if the code lacks maintainability. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design create a warm, family-friendly atmosphere?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design creates an intimate, welcoming environment suitable for family sharing: 1) Warm color palette that evokes comfort and closeness 2) Intuitive navigation that's accessible to all age groups 3) Clean, uncluttered layout that highlights content over interface 4) Proper typography hierarchy for readability (body font ≥ 16px for older family members). Deduct 3 points for each element that feels cold or commercial, 5 points for poor accessibility for elderly users, and 5 points for cluttered layouts that distract from content. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the user experience optimized for non-technical family members?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions are designed for users of varying technical abilities: 1) Drag-and-drop file uploads with clear visual feedback 2) One-click sharing with intuitive icons 3) Simple content organization that doesn't require technical knowledge 4) Fast loading times for media content (images load within 2 seconds). Deduct 5 points for each confusing interaction flow, 3 points for slow media loading, and 5 points if elderly or less tech-savvy users would struggle with basic operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}