@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/web_applications-communication/private-messaging-feature-forum.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 627,
-  "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 whenever possible. Implement a private messaging feature for a forum where users have access to private messages from their personal center. When clicked, it takes them to a message list page displaying conversations with other users, showing the username of the other party and a summary of the most recent message. Clicking on a conversation enters a detailed message page where users can view the complete conversation history and send new messages.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the private messaging UI structure properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes all three required UI components: 1) Personal center with message access point, 2) Message list/inbox view showing conversations, and 3) Detailed conversation view. Score 0 if any component is missing, 5 if all are present but navigation between them is flawed, and 10 if all components are properly interconnected with smooth navigation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the message list functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Check if the message list page correctly displays: 1) Usernames of conversation partners, 2) Preview of the most recent message content (truncated appropriately), 3) Timestamp information, and 4) Unread message indicators. Deduct 2 points for each missing feature. Score 10 if all features are implemented with proper sorting (newest conversations first).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the conversation view functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the detailed conversation page includes: 1) Complete message history with proper chronological ordering, 2) Clear visual distinction between sent and received messages, 3) Message timestamps, 4) A functional compose/reply interface with send button. Deduct 3 points if scrolling to older messages is not implemented, 2 points if there's no loading indicator for message history, and 3 points if the reply mechanism is incomplete.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the data management properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the code's approach to message data management: 1) Proper data structures for conversations and messages, 2) API endpoints for fetching/sending messages, 3) Caching strategy to minimize redundant requests, 4) Handling of offline/reconnection scenarios. Score 3 points for proper data structures, 3 for complete API integration, 2 for caching implementation, and 2 for offline handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty message lists, network failures during message sending, long messages, 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 messaging experience (e.g., 1. Message read receipts, 2. Typing indicators, 3. Emoji reactions to messages, 4. Ability to share media files). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple message sending methods), 2. Function modules unrelated to messaging (e.g., a built-in game), 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/business logic/API layers), component reusability, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state management is implemented poorly; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high; deduct 2 points if naming conventions are inconsistent. 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 messaging UI principles: 1) Intuitive conversation bubbles, 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle), 3) Professional typography (clear hierarchy between sender names, messages, and timestamps). Deduct 3 points for each confusing visual element, 5 points for poor contrast that affects readability, and 5 points for chaotic message layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the messaging interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Immediate visual feedback when sending messages, 2) Smooth scrolling in conversation history, 3) Appropriate loading states when fetching messages. Deduct 3 points for delayed feedback when sending messages, 3 points for jerky scrolling performance, and 4 points if new messages don't automatically scroll into view. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/prize-drawing-web-page.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1163,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. For the company's annual party, I want to create a web page for a prize drawing.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the prize drawing core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the random selection mechanism, with appropriate randomization algorithms that prevent predictability. Check for proper animation effects during the drawing process. Score 0 if the core drawing function is not implemented, 5 if only basic random selection exists, and 10 if it includes advanced features like customizable drawing rules, weighted probabilities, and exclusion mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the prize pool management system comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code allows adding, editing, and removing prizes from the pool. Prize details should include name, image, quantity, and priority/weight. Deduct 5 points if prize editing is not implemented, 3 points if prize quantities are not tracked. Award full points if the system manages prize inventory during draws, preventing the same prize from being drawn when depleted.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are participant management features complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system allows importing/exporting participant lists, marking winners, and preventing duplicates. Check for filtering capabilities (such as department-based draws) and participant grouping. Deduct 5 points if basic CRUD operations for participants are missing, 3 points if there's no winner history tracking. The full score requires unique participant identification and duplicate prevention.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the drawing process interactive and visually engaging?",
-      "description": "Assess if the drawing process includes visual animations (like spinning wheels, flipping cards, or slot machine effects) with appropriate sound effects and visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if animations are missing, 3 points if the process lacks suspense-building elements. Full points require a visually impressive animation sequence that builds excitement for an annual party atmosphere.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty participant lists, network issues during data loading, 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. Confetti animations for winners 2. Dramatic reveal sequences 3. Live result dashboard). 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 random selection methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to prize drawing (e.g., unnecessary social media features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 3D 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 drawing logic/UI/data management), reusability of components, 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 there's no separation between presentation and business logic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design is appropriate for a celebratory annual party context: 1) Festive yet professional color scheme 2) Clear hierarchy for prize categories 3) Appropriate use of company branding. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered section, 5 points for inappropriate or inconsistent color schemes, and 5 points for poor readability of prize and winner information. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects create excitement while remaining functional: 1) Smooth transitions between different drawing states 2) Appropriate animation duration that builds tension without excessive delays 3) Clear focus on winners when announced. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for excessively long animations that disrupt the flow, and 5 points for confusing user flows during the drawing process. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/product-login-page-with-multiple-options.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1584,
-  "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 functional. Create a local web page interface that serves as a product login page. It should include product demonstration images, username and password input fields, and the ability to log in with a mobile phone number or email address. At the bottom, provide password recovery functionality and options for logging in through partner websites such as WeChat, QQ, DingTalk, Sina, NetEase, etc. Also include two registration options: one for teachers and one for students.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is a complete login interface implemented with all required elements?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes all required elements: product demo images, username/password fields, mobile/email login options, password recovery, third-party login options (WeChat, QQ, DingTalk, Sina, NetEase), and separate registration options for teachers and students. Score 0 if missing more than 3 elements, 5 if missing 1-2 elements, and 10 if all elements are present with proper layout and design.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the form validation properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements proper validation for username, password, email, and phone number inputs. Check for regex patterns, instant feedback on invalid inputs, and prevention of form submission with invalid data. Score 3 if basic validation exists, 7 if validation provides user feedback, and 10 if comprehensive validation with clear error messages and visual indicators is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the authentication flow complete and functional?",
-      "description": "Review whether the login functionality handles different authentication methods (username/password, mobile, email) correctly with appropriate state management. Check if the code includes proper handling of login attempts, success/failure responses, and session management. Deduct 5 points if the authentication logic is incomplete, and 3 points if error handling is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the third-party login options and registration paths properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the third-party login options (WeChat, QQ, DingTalk, etc.) have proper OAuth implementation or mock interfaces, and whether the different registration paths (teacher vs student) are clearly distinguished with appropriate form fields and validation. Deduct 5 points if third-party logins are merely decorative without functionality, and 3 points if the registration paths lack differentiation. 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 errors, wrong credentials, 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. Password strength meter 2. Animated transitions between login methods 3. Intelligent form field auto-completion 4. Biometric authentication options). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation methods for the same field) 2. Function modules unrelated to login (e.g., news feeds, unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy background animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core login functionality is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/validation/authentication logic), code organization, and best practices for web development. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for accessibility or responsiveness. 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) Consistent styling for form elements. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic form 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 feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition between login methods is smooth and intuitive 3) Clear visual focus guidance and tab navigation 4) Mobile-friendly touch targets (≥ 44px). Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between form states, and 5 points for hard-to-find important functions like password recovery. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/qml-wechat-work-interface.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1233,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Create QML code that mimics the PC version of WeChat Work interface.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the main UI layout of WeChat Work accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the QML code accurately implements the three-panel layout structure of PC WeChat Work (left sidebar for menu navigation, middle panel for contact/chat list, right panel for conversation details). Score 0 if the basic layout structure is missing, 5 if only partial layout is implemented, and 10 if the layout closely resembles the authentic WeChat Work interface with proper sizing and proportions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the core navigation elements properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of key navigation elements including: chat/contacts/workspace tabs in the sidebar, search functionality, and user profile section. Each missing element costs 2 points. The navigation should be interactive with proper state changes on selection. Deduct 5 points if navigation state management is not implemented correctly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the chat conversation interface fully functional?",
-      "description": "Check whether the chat panel includes message bubbles with different styles for sent/received messages, timestamp display, avatar integration, and message status indicators. Examine if the input area contains text input field, emoji selector, file attachment, and send button. Score 0 if the chat interface is missing, 5 if it's basic without styling, and 10 if it closely resembles WeChat Work's chat UI with all components.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are contacts and organizational structure components implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements the contacts view with organizational structure hierarchy, contact search, contact cards with avatars, names and titles. Check if the department tree structure is properly represented. Deduct 3 points for missing search functionality, 3 points for missing organizational hierarchy, and 4 points for incomplete contact card information. 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 states, error handling, resizing windows, etc.) and provide appropriate visual feedback. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like empty chat history or contact list. Give 10 points if comprehensive error handling is implemented, 5 points if basic error handling exists, and 0 points if no exception handling is present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Dark mode implementation 2. Custom themes 3. Animated transitions 4. Message reaction features). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar UI components (e.g., multiple message bubble implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to WeChat Work (e.g., unrelated tools or games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations or transitions). 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, models, and controllers), code reusability, property bindings usage, and QML best practices. Deduct 5 points if global properties are overused; deduct 5 points if there's excessive code duplication; deduct 5 points if the code structure doesn't follow QML conventions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visual design matches WeChat Work's aesthetic: 1) Correct color scheme (primary green, white/light gray backgrounds, proper contrast) 2) Proper layout spacing and alignment 3) Appropriate font usage (consistent sizes and weights). Deduct 3 points for each major visual deviation from WeChat Work's design language, 5 points for inconsistent color usage, and 5 points for poor spacing or alignment issues. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the QML animations and transitions provide a smooth user experience: 1) Button hover/press states 2) Smooth panel transitions 3) Loading states where appropriate 4) Scrolling behavior in lists. Deduct 3 points for each missing interaction feedback, 5 points for choppy animations, and 5 points for unresponsive UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/react-autocomplete-text-box-implementation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 264,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. React implementation: Create an autocomplete text box",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the autocomplete core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the React component accurately implements real-time search filtering, keyboard navigation (up/down arrows, Enter to select, Escape to close), and click selection. The component should handle input changes with proper debouncing (200-300ms) and display filtered results dynamically. Score 0 if basic autocomplete logic is missing, 5 if only basic filtering works, and 10 if all core interactions including keyboard navigation are fully functional.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the data handling and performance optimization properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes efficient data filtering algorithms, proper use of React hooks (useState, useEffect, useMemo), and performance optimizations like debouncing/throttling for API calls. Evaluate if large datasets are handled efficiently without UI blocking. Deduct 5 points if no debouncing is implemented, 3 points if unnecessary re-renders occur, and 2 points if filtering algorithm is inefficient. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the component state management and lifecycle properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the React component properly manages internal state (input value, dropdown visibility, selected index, filtered options) and handles component lifecycle events correctly. Check for proper cleanup of event listeners and timers. The component should handle edge cases like empty results, loading states, and error handling. Deduct 5 points if state management is chaotic, 3 points if memory leaks exist due to improper cleanup. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the component accessibility and usability standards compliant?",
-      "description": "Check whether the autocomplete component implements proper ARIA attributes (aria-expanded, aria-activedescendant, role='combobox'), supports screen readers, and follows accessibility guidelines. The component should be keyboard-navigable and provide clear focus indicators. Deduct 5 points if ARIA attributes are missing, 3 points if keyboard navigation is incomplete, and 2 points if focus management is poor. Give 10 points if fully accessible.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty input, special characters, network failures for async data, rapid typing, component unmounting during async operations) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If 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. Highlighting matched text portions 2. Recent searches memory 3. Category grouping of results 4. Custom result templates 5. Multi-select capability). 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 filtering logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to autocomplete (e.g., built-in form validation) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations on every keystroke). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core autocomplete functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review React component structure (proper component composition, custom hooks usage, props interface design), TypeScript integration if applicable, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if component is not properly decomposed or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if props are not properly typed or documented. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the autocomplete design follows modern UI principles: 1) Harmonious color matching with proper contrast ratios 2) Consistent spacing and alignment (following 8px grid system) 3) Professional typography (readable font sizes ≥ 14px, proper line heights) 4) Clear visual hierarchy between input and dropdown. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor color contrast, and 5 points for inconsistent styling. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the autocomplete interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Instant visual feedback on input changes 2) Smooth dropdown animations (200-300ms duration) 3) Clear hover and focus states 4) Responsive selection feedback. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without proper feedback, 3 points for jarring animations or layout shifts, and 5 points if dropdown positioning is inconsistent or cuts off. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/react-native-flashlist-chat-application.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 952,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the code you generate is executable and demonstrable. React Native FlashList for chat application.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the FlashList implementation optimized for chat performance?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements FlashList with optimized rendering for chat messages, including virtualization settings (estimatedItemSize, overrideItemLayout), proper key extraction, and message rendering optimization. Check for memory leak prevention with useCallback for handlers and memoization of item renderers. Score 0 if basic FlashList is not implemented, 5 if implemented with default settings, and 10 if fully optimized with performance considerations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are chat-specific UI components properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes essential chat UI components such as message bubbles with proper styling for sent/received messages, timestamps, read receipts, user avatars, and media previews. Check for proper text overflow handling, emoji support, and URL detection/preview. Deduct 3 points if message types aren't differentiated, 3 points if timestamps/read receipts are missing, and 4 points if media handling is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the message loading and pagination mechanism effectively implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements efficient pagination with onEndReached handler, proper loading states, and scroll position maintenance when new messages are added or history is loaded. Verify implementation of bi-directional loading (newer messages at bottom, older at top). Deduct 5 points if pagination is not implemented, 3 points for missing loading indicators, and 3 points if scroll position jumps during new message arrival. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are chat-specific interactions and animations properly handled?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes smooth scrolling to bottom, typing indicators, pull-to-refresh functionality, and appropriate animations for new messages. Check for message action handlers (long press for options), swipe actions, and reply-to functionality. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction, and award full 10 points only if animations are performant (verified using Flipper or performance metrics).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty message lists, network failures, malformed message data, extremely long messages, etc.) and provide friendly error handling 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. Message reactions with animations 2. Voice message visualization 3. Contextual smart replies 4. In-chat media gallery). 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 re-renders causing performance issues 2. Unnecessary wrapper components adding to the component tree 3. Heavy animations or effects that affect scrolling performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core messaging functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating message rendering/state management/network layers), component reusability, and appropriate use of React hooks. Deduct 5 points if prop drilling is excessive instead of using Context; deduct 5 points if components have mixed responsibilities; deduct 5 points if there's no error boundary implementation. 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 chat UI principles: 1) Clear visual distinction between sent and received messages 2) Proper whitespace around messages (following 8px principle) 3) Readable typography (minimum 14px, contrast ratio ≥4.5:1). Deduct 3 points for each accessibility issue, 5 points for inconsistent bubble styling, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the chat interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Message send feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth scroll performance (60fps) 3) Keyboard appearance doesn't disrupt visible messages. Deduct 5 points for frame drops during scrolling, 3 points for layout shifts when keyboard appears/disappears, and 5 points for input field that doesn't adjust properly with keyboard. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/react-tailwind-homepage-development.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 782,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Help me develop a homepage using React 18+ and Tailwind CSS.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the React 18+ project setup correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code sets up a proper React 18+ project with necessary dependencies, configuration files (package.json, tsconfig.json if TypeScript), and appropriate folder structure. Check if React 18 specific features like createRoot are properly utilized instead of legacy ReactDOM.render. Score 0 if React 18+ is not used, 5 points if basic setup exists but lacks proper configuration, 10 points for a complete and well-structured React 18+ project setup.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is Tailwind CSS properly integrated and effectively utilized?",
-      "description": "Verify that Tailwind CSS is correctly installed and configured (tailwind.config.js present with proper settings). Check if the code leverages Tailwind's utility classes appropriately instead of custom CSS, uses responsive design classes (sm:, md:, lg:, etc.), and follows Tailwind best practices. Deduct 5 points if Tailwind is installed but barely used, 3 points if configuration is incomplete, and 2 points if utility classes are used inconsistently. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are homepage components properly structured and organized?",
-      "description": "Assess if the homepage is broken down into logical, reusable components (header, navigation, hero section, features, footer, etc.). Check if components follow single responsibility principle and have clear props interfaces. Deduct 3 points for monolithic components, 3 points for prop drilling issues, and 4 points if components are not properly structured or reusable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the homepage responsive across different device sizes?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the homepage renders correctly on mobile, tablet, and desktop screens using Tailwind's responsive utilities. Check for appropriate use of flex/grid layouts, proper image handling, and text scaling. Deduct 5 points if the layout breaks on mobile devices, 3 points if tablet view has significant issues, and 2 points for minor responsive problems. 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 (missing data, loading states, error handling, etc.) and provides appropriate fallbacks. Check for proper form validation if forms exist, and handling of asynchronous operations. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no error handling or loading states exist, 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. Skeleton loading screens 2. Subtle micro-interactions 3. Dark/light mode toggle 4. Animated page transitions). 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 component implementations that serve similar purposes 2. Unnecessary third-party libraries for tasks that could be accomplished with React/Tailwind 3. Overengineered solutions for simple problems. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review code organization (proper file/folder structure), component reusability, clean code practices, and performance optimizations (like React.memo, useMemo, useCallback). Deduct 3 points for global state mismanagement, 3 points for excessive re-renders, 2 points for inconsistent naming conventions, and 2 points for lack of code splitting where appropriate. 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 web design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme aligned with Tailwind's color palette 2) Proper spacing using Tailwind's spacing utilities 3) Typography hierarchy with appropriate font sizes and weights 4) Visual hierarchy guiding user attention. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent styling, 3 points for poor contrast or accessibility issues, and 4 points for cluttered layouts or unbalanced visual elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether interactive elements provide appropriate feedback: 1) Hover/focus states for clickable elements 2) Smooth transitions for state changes 3) Loading indicators for asynchronous operations 4) Appropriate animations that enhance UX without being distracting. Deduct 3 points for missing interaction states, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 4 points for confusing navigation patterns or interaction flows. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/real-time-captioning-mobile-app-ui-design.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 221,
-  "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. Below is a complete UI design solution for a real-time captioning mobile app, including core functional pages and visual style specifications:\n\n1. Design Style\nColor scheme:\n- Primary color: Deep blue (#2563EB) for tech feel + Light gray (#F5F5F5) for background\n- Secondary colors: Green (#10B981) for real-time caption highlights + Red (#EF4444) for recording warnings\nTypography: Google Sans (tech-oriented sans-serif font)\nIcons: Material Design linear icon library\nAnimation effects: Caption line-by-line scrolling, microphone sound wave animation\n\n2. Core Page Designs\n① Splash Screen\nClean LOGO + Slogan (\"Real-time transcription, communication without barriers\")\nDeep blue background + White dynamic waveform graphic\n\n② Main Page (Real-time Captions)\nMain page illustration\n\nHeader bar: Microphone status icon (dynamic sound wave), Language switch button (Chinese/English)\nCentral area:\n- Real-time caption display box (black background with white text, enlarged font)\n- Caption pause/save button (floating in bottom right corner)\nBottom control bar:\n- Large circular microphone button (red/green status toggle)\n- Settings/History record quick access\n\n③ Settings Page\nLanguage settings:\n- Source language/target language selection (dialect options supported)\n- Translation toggle (Chinese-English bidirectional)\nDisplay settings:\n- Caption font size/color\n- Background opacity adjustment\nAdvanced features:\n- Offline mode toggle\n- Sensitive word filtering\n\n④ History Records Page\nTimeline list (grouped by date)\nEach record displays:\n- Timestamp + first line text preview\n- Category tags (meeting/classroom/video, etc.)\nSearch bar + Batch export button (supports TXT/PDF)\n\n⑤ Recording Details Page\nAudio waveform visualization\nFull text display (editable for corrections)\nBottom action bar:\n- Share/Export/Delete\n- Key segment marking feature\n\n⑥ User Onboarding (First Launch)\n3-screen sliding guide:\n- Permission explanations (microphone/storage)\n- Core feature demonstrations (GIF animations)\n- Personalized setting recommendations\n\n3. Interaction Details\nVoice feedback: Vibration notifications when recording starts/ends\nReal-time optimization:\n- Captions scroll line by line (keeping the last 3 lines)\n- Key terminology highlighting (requires custom glossary)\nAccessibility design:\n- High contrast mode\n- Font scaling up to 200%\n\nPlease output the corresponding complete HTML code for me",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Are all core UI pages completely implemented according to the design specifications?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements all 6 specified pages (Splash Screen, Main Page, Settings, History Records, Recording Details, User Onboarding) with HTML structure matching the design requirements. Check if each page contains the specified elements: splash screen with logo and slogan, main page with header bar/caption display/control bar, settings with language/display/advanced options, history with timeline list, recording details with waveform visualization, and onboarding with 3-screen guide. Score 0 if missing core pages, 5 if only basic structure is implemented, and 10 if all pages are fully detailed according to specifications.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the visual design strictly follow the specified color scheme and typography standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation uses the exact color palette: Primary deep blue (#2563EB), light gray background (#F5F5F5), green highlights (#10B981), red warnings (#EF4444). Check if Google Sans font family is properly implemented and Material Design icons are correctly integrated. Verify background opacity settings, high contrast mode availability, and font scaling up to 200% as specified. Deduct 3 points for each incorrect color usage, 5 points if font family is not Google Sans, and 3 points if Material Design icons are missing. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the real-time captioning interface and interaction mechanisms properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the main captioning interface includes: black background caption display box with white enlarged text, line-by-line scrolling animation keeping last 3 lines visible, dynamic microphone sound wave animation, floating pause/save button, large circular microphone button with red/green status toggle, and key terminology highlighting functionality. Verify if the interface supports the specified real-time optimization features and maintains proper visual hierarchy. Score 0 if core captioning interface is missing, 5 if basic display is implemented without animations, and 10 if all real-time features are fully functional.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the specialized features and accessibility options comprehensively developed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate implementation of advanced features: language switching (Chinese/English with dialect support), translation toggle, offline mode, sensitive word filtering, audio waveform visualization, editable text corrections, category tagging system, search functionality, batch export (TXT/PDF), key segment marking, vibration feedback, and permission handling explanations. Check if accessibility features like high contrast mode and 200% font scaling are working. Deduct 3 points for each missing major feature, 5 points if accessibility options are not implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust and handles edge cases appropriately?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as microphone permission denial, network interruption, audio processing errors, invalid user inputs, page navigation failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include proper error boundaries, fallback mechanisms, and user-friendly error messages. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average robustness, and 0 points if no exception handling is present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance user experience beyond basic requirements?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the captioning experience (e.g., 1. Smart punctuation insertion 2. Speaker identification and labeling 3. Custom vocabulary learning 4. Voice command shortcuts 5. Real-time confidence scoring display 6. Automatic meeting minutes generation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented that genuinely improves the real-time captioning workflow (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features that detract from the core functionality?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple audio processing pipelines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to real-time captioning (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex 3D animations during captioning). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with core captioning performance or usability.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code demonstrate high engineering quality and maintainability?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing/UI components/data management layers), component reusability, proper state management, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or modern development patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if CSS/JavaScript is not properly organized into modules. Evaluate proper use of semantic HTML and accessibility attributes. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional mobile app design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern mobile design principles: 1) Proper color contrast ratios (WCAG AA compliance) 2) Touch-friendly element sizing (minimum 44px touch targets) 3) Consistent spacing system (8px grid adherence) 4) Professional typography hierarchy (readable font sizes ≥14px, proper line heights) 5) Proper visual feedback for all interactive elements. Deduct 3 points for each accessibility violation, 5 points for poor color contrast, and 5 points for inconsistent spacing or typography. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Are the animations and transitions smooth with appropriate timing and performance?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects enhance usability: 1) Caption scrolling animations are smooth and don't interfere with reading 2) Microphone sound wave animation reflects actual audio input 3) Page transitions are fluid (300-500ms duration) 4) Touch feedback is immediate (≤100ms) 5) Loading states are properly animated 6) No janky animations or performance issues during real-time captioning. Deduct 5 points for each choppy animation, 3 points for inappropriate timing, and 5 points if animations negatively impact core functionality performance. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}