@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/web_applications-communication/web-app-login-profile-chat-pages.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 820,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. In the following, generate a login page, a profile page, and a chat page. Also, please do not use <template slot-scope=\"scope\">, as I don't understand this syntax.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the login page functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the login page includes complete form validation (email format, password strength), authentication logic, error handling, and secure token management. Check for proper input sanitization and CSRF protection. Score 0 if basic login form is missing, 5 if only frontend validation exists, and 10 if complete authentication flow with security measures is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the profile page comprehensively designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the profile page includes user information display, avatar upload functionality, editable fields with validation, and proper data persistence. Check for image optimization and preview capabilities. Score 0 if static display only, 5 if basic editing is available, and 10 if full profile management with file handling is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the chat page real-time communication implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the chat page includes real-time messaging (WebSocket or similar), message history, typing indicators, and proper message formatting. Evaluate message delivery status and timestamp handling. Score 0 if no real-time features, 5 if basic messaging works, and 10 if comprehensive chat features with real-time updates are fully functional.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the page navigation and routing properly structured?",
-      "description": "Assess whether proper navigation between login, profile, and chat pages is implemented with route protection, authentication guards, and smooth transitions. Check for proper state management across pages and session handling. Score 0 if no routing exists, 5 if basic navigation works, and 10 if complete routing with authentication guards is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, invalid inputs, authentication errors, file upload failures, 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. Real-time message encryption 2. Voice message support 3. Theme customization 4. Advanced search in chat history 5. Emoji reactions). 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 logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to core pages (e.g., built-in games or music players) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 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 authentication/UI/API layers), component reusability, and proper code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper folder structure or component separation exists. 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 UI components across all three pages. 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 4) Proper loading states and progress indicators 5) Smooth page transitions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during interactions, 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/web-chat-tool-create-join-room.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1663,
-  "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 when possible. Develop a web chat tool with a homepage featuring two buttons: \"Create Room\" and \"Join Room",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the web chat room creation functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the 'Create Room' button actually generates a unique room ID, initializes a new chat session, and provides a mechanism to share this room ID with others. Score 0 if room creation is missing, 5 if basic room creation exists without validation, and 10 if it includes server-side verification, unique ID generation with collision prevention, and visual feedback of successful creation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the room joining mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the 'Join Room' button includes input validation for room IDs, handles non-existent rooms gracefully, and successfully connects users to existing chat sessions. Deduct 5 points if there's no validation for invalid room IDs, 3 points if there's no loading state during connection, and 2 points if error messages are unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the real-time messaging functionality implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Assess if the chat implements a reliable real-time messaging system (WebSockets/Server-Sent Events/long polling), handles message delivery statuses, and implements message queuing for offline users. Score 0 if messaging doesn't work in real-time, 5 if basic messaging works but lacks delivery confirmations, and 10 if it includes typing indicators, read receipts, and handles network interruptions gracefully.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the chat interface include essential messaging features?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the chat interface includes message timestamps, user identification, message history loading, and scrolling to new messages. Deduct 2 points for each missing feature. Give 10 points only if the chat includes all essential features plus at least one additional feature like message editing, deletion, or reactions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruption, invalid inputs, concurrent users editing, browser tab switching, 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. End-to-end encryption 2. File/image sharing 3. Voice/video chat option 4. Custom emoji/sticker support). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple notification systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to chat (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/business logic/network layers), error handling patterns, and code reusability. 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 clear separation between components. 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) Message sending 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 stuttering during fast message scrolling, 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/web-document-collaboration-editor-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 514,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the generated code is executable and functional. Create a web-based online document collaboration editing frontend interface. The interface should include a text editing area where users can input text content. Above it, there should be a toolbar containing text formatting buttons such as \"Bold,\" \"Italic,\" \"Underline,\" etc. When clicked, these buttons should change the style of the selected text. Additionally, the interface should display a real-time word count of the current document.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic text editing area properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a functional text editing area with proper event handling (keypress, focus, blur), text selection capabilities, and cursor positioning. Score 0 if the editing area is not implemented, 5 if it has basic functionality but lacks advanced features, and 10 if it includes features like auto-save and undo/redo history.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the formatting buttons fully functional?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code properly implements formatting buttons (Bold, Italic, Underline, etc.) that apply formatting to selected text. The implementation should handle selection ranges correctly and maintain proper markup in the document. Deduct 2 points if any core formatting option is missing, 3 points if the selection state after formatting is lost, and 5 points if the formatting doesn't persist across editing sessions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the real-time word count feature correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the word count updates in real-time as the user types, handles different languages correctly, and accounts for edge cases (like consecutive spaces or punctuation). The counter should update without noticeable performance impact. Deduct 3 points if the count is inaccurate, 3 points if it doesn't update in real-time, and 4 points if it causes performance issues. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the interface handle collaborative features appropriately?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes conflict resolution mechanisms, user presence indicators, and real-time synchronization capabilities. Check for cursor/selection broadcasting between users and clear visual feedback on who is editing what. Deduct 5 points if there's no conflict resolution strategy, 3 points if user presence is not visualized, and 2 points if there's no indication of remote changes. 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 content loss prevention, browser crashes, network interruption, concurrent edits, 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. Automatic document formatting 2. AI-powered writing suggestions 3. Document history with visual diff 4. Markdown/rich text switching 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 text selection methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to document editing (e.g., built-in games or distracting elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect editing performance (e.g., excessive animations on keypress). 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 document model/view/controller layers), component reusability, and build process optimization. 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 optimized for performance. 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 editor design principles: 1) Clean, distraction-free editing area 2) Proper toolbar organization with logical grouping 3) Appropriate use of white space and contrast 4) Professional typography for both editing area and UI elements. Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 5 points for inconsistent visual hierarchy, and 5 points for poor readability in the editing area. 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) Text input latency ≤ 16ms 2) Format button feedback ≤ 100ms 3) Clear visual indicators for text selection and formatting states. Deduct 5 points for perceptible input lag, 3 points for formatting operations that disrupt the editing flow, and 5 points if the current formatting state isn't clearly indicated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/web-message-board-code.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1556,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that your generated code is executable and can be demonstrated. Please help write code for a message board.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is a complete message board data structure implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements the core data structures for a message board: message objects (with timestamps, user IDs, content), user profiles, and threading/reply relationships. Score 0 if no data structure is defined, 5 if only basic message objects are created, and 10 if a complete relational structure including replies, likes, and metadata is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are essential CRUD operations fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes all necessary Create, Read, Update, Delete operations for message board functionality: posting messages, viewing messages (including pagination), editing posts, and deleting messages. Deduct 3 points for each missing operation. Proper validation and error handling for each operation should be present. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is user authentication and authorization implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes user registration, login functionality, and proper authorization controls (who can edit/delete which messages). Score 0 if no authentication exists, 5 if basic authentication without proper security measures (like password hashing) is implemented, and 10 if a complete secure authentication system with session management is present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is data persistence properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess how the message board data is stored and persisted: Is there a database connection (SQL/NoSQL)? Are there migrations or schema definitions? Is there proper data sanitization to prevent injection attacks? Deduct 5 points if data is only stored in memory without persistence, and 3 points if there's no data validation or sanitization. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, server errors, concurrent editing conflicts, 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. Real-time updates with WebSockets 2. Rich text formatting or markdown support 3. @mentions and notifications 4. Emoji reactions). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple user authentication methods without clear purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to a message board (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or visual effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating models, views, controllers or appropriate frontend/backend architecture), code reusability, 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 error handling or logging. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for message threads. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Form submission feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth loading states when fetching messages 3) Clear visual feedback for user actions (posting, editing, deleting). Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between pages or states, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/webpage-auto-assign-tasks.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1131,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code when possible. How do I create a webpage that can automatically assign tasks?",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the automatic task assignment algorithm implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a proper task assignment algorithm that distributes tasks based on logical criteria (workload balancing, priority queuing, skill matching, etc.). Score 0 if no assignment logic exists, 5 if basic random/round-robin distribution is implemented, and 10 if an intelligent algorithm considering multiple factors (availability, skills, priority) is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the implementation include a complete task data model?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the task data structure is properly defined with essential attributes (title, description, priority, deadline, assignee, status). Deduct 2 points for each missing critical attribute. Check if proper data validation is implemented for task creation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is a user/resource management system implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes functionality to manage users/resources to whom tasks can be assigned. Score 0 if no user management exists, 5 if basic user profiles are implemented, and 10 if comprehensive user management with skill profiles, availability tracking, and workload monitoring is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a complete task lifecycle management system?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements functionality for creating, assigning, tracking, updating, and completing tasks. Deduct 2 points for each missing lifecycle stage. Check if the system includes notifications for task assignments and deadline reminders. 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 (invalid inputs, server errors, concurrent operations, 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 task suggestions 2. Drag-and-drop task management 3. Real-time collaboration features 4. Intelligent deadline/priority recommendations). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to assign tasks) 2. Function modules unrelated to task management (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 data/logic/UI layers), code organization, reusability, 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 is no error handling or logging mechanism. 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 task visualization (clear status indicators, progress bars, priority markings). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic task presentation. 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) Task assignment feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback when tasks are assigned or updated. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy task assignment processes, and 5 points for confusing interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/webpage-deepseek-model-interaction.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1534,
-  "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 purposes. Help me create a webpage that can interact with a locally deployed DeepSeek model.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the API connectivity implementation complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements API calls to the DeepSeek model, including proper request formatting, response handling, and error management. Score 0 if no API connection is implemented, 5 if basic connectivity exists but lacks error handling, and 10 if comprehensive API integration with proper timeout handling, retries, and error states is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the frontend interface provide comprehensive interaction with the DeepSeek model?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the interface allows users to send various types of prompts/queries to the model and displays responses appropriately. Check for input validation, support for different query types (text completion, question answering, etc.), and proper display of model outputs with appropriate formatting. Deduct 3 points if only basic text input/output is supported without formatting options, 5 points if there's no way to customize model parameters, and 2 points if response streaming is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there proper request state management and loading indicators?",
-      "description": "Check if the implementation includes proper state management for API requests (idle, loading, success, error states) and provides appropriate visual feedback to users. Evaluate whether loading indicators are present during model processing, whether timeouts are handled gracefully, and if users can cancel ongoing requests. Deduct 5 points if no loading indicators exist, 3 points if request cancellation is not possible, and 2 points if error states are not properly communicated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a conversation history or context management system?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the implementation maintains conversation history and manages context for ongoing interactions with the model. Check if previous exchanges are displayed, if context is preserved between requests, and if users can review or reference past interactions. Deduct 5 points if no history is maintained, 3 points if history exists but cannot be managed (cleared/exported), and 2 points if context between messages is not preserved. 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 API timeouts, network failures, malformed responses, 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. Syntax highlighting for code responses 2. Voice input/output capabilities 3. Response visualization tools 4. Message templates or shortcuts). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to send the same type of request) 2. Function modules unrelated to the DeepSeek model interaction (e.g., unrelated analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the interface). 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 API logic/UI components/state management), code organization, and potential for maintenance and extension. 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 clear 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 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": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/webrtc-frontend-backend-springboot.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1690,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable whenever possible. Help me write a simple WebRTC frontend and backend code, with the backend using Spring Boot.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WebRTC peer connection implementation complete?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the WebRTC peer connection flow including ICE candidate collection, SDP offer/answer exchange, and media stream handling. Check if appropriate event listeners for connection state changes are implemented. Score 0 if the core WebRTC functionality is missing, 5 if basic connection is implemented but lacks error handling, and 10 if a complete peer connection lifecycle with proper state management is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the signaling mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a proper signaling mechanism (WebSocket, HTTP polling, etc.) to exchange SDP offers/answers and ICE candidates between peers. Check if the signaling server in Spring Boot handles concurrent connections and maintains session states. Deduct 5 points if the signaling protocol doesn't include message types/formats, and 3 points if there's no heartbeat mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is media stream handling properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code properly handles getUserMedia for camera/microphone access, includes appropriate constraints for video/audio quality, and provides UI elements to display the media streams. Verify if it handles permission denials gracefully. Deduct 5 points if there's no media stream error handling, 3 points if stream quality configuration options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the implementation handle NAT traversal techniques?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code configures ICE servers (STUN/TURN) correctly for NAT traversal. Check if the backend provides TURN credential generation with appropriate authentication. Deduct 5 points if only STUN is used without TURN fallback, 3 points if credentials aren't time-limited, and 5 points if no NAT traversal solution is implemented at all. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common WebRTC-specific issues (browser incompatibilities, reconnection after network interruptions, graceful degradation when media devices are unplugged, etc.) and provides 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. Screen sharing functionality 2. Chat alongside video 3. Bandwidth adaptation 4. Video filters/effects). 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 signaling mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to WebRTC communication (e.g., complex authentication system when not needed) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that consume bandwidth). 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 (separate modules for signaling, peer connection management, UI components), error handling patterns, and build process configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not 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) Video/audio controls appear/disappear with smooth transitions 2) Connection status indicators provide clear visual feedback 3) Call initiation/termination has intuitive UI flow. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions during call setup/teardown, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/webrtc-frontend-player-index.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 865,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Write a WebRTC front-end player embedded in the center of index.html.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WebRTC implementation complete and functional?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements WebRTC connectivity including getUserMedia(), RTCPeerConnection handling, and ICE candidate exchange. Code should handle media constraints properly (video/audio selection, resolution settings). Score 0 if WebRTC is not implemented, 5 if only basic connection is established, and 10 if it includes complete signaling, connection establishment and error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the video player properly embedded and responsive?",
-      "description": "Check if the video element is properly centered in index.html with responsive design principles. The player should maintain aspect ratio while resizing and adapt to different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points if not centered, 3 points if not responsive, and 4 points if aspect ratio distortion occurs on resize. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are UI controls and playback features implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of essential video controls (play/pause, volume, fullscreen) and additional features like picture-in-picture or stream quality selection. Controls should be accessible and intuitive. Deduct 2 points for each missing essential control, and 1 point for poor UI integration. Add 1 point for each well-implemented additional feature (max 3 points). Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there proper error handling and fallback mechanisms?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes comprehensive error handling for WebRTC-specific issues (permission denial, connection failures, browser incompatibility) and provides appropriate fallback solutions. Deduct 3 points if permission errors aren't handled, 3 points if connection failures lack recovery options, and 4 points if there's no browser compatibility fallback. 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 sudden disconnections, media stream interruptions, browser tab switching, 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. Real-time video filters 2. Screen sharing capability 3. Recording functionality 4. Network quality indicators). 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 methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to WebRTC video playback (e.g., unnecessary analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations around the player). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core WebRTC 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 WebRTC logic, UI components, and event handling), proper use of promises/async patterns for WebRTC operations, and code reusability. 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 clear separation between WebRTC functionality and UI. 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 for player controls (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system for captions and controls (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) Video start/control response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animations for controls appear/disappear controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for connection status. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions in the UI, and 5 points for confusing connection status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}