@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/webpage-code-preview-editor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 703,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. Help me create HTML code for a webpage that can preview the generated code, with an interface divided into two parts: the left side for pasting, deleting, and modifying code, and the right side for real-time preview of the webpage generated by this code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Check if the HTML code correctly implements a two-panel layout with clear separation between the code editing area (left) and preview area (right). The layout should be responsive and maintain proper proportions across different screen sizes. Score 0 if the dual-panel structure is missing, 5 if implemented but with layout issues, 10 if perfectly implemented with responsive design considerations.",
-      "description": "Check if the HTML code correctly implements a two-panel layout with clear separation between the code editing area (left) and preview area (right). The layout should be responsive and maintain proper proportions across different screen sizes. Score 0 if the dual-panel structure is missing, 5 if implemented but with layout issues, 10 if perfectly implemented with responsive design considerations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Evaluate if the code editor panel provides essential editing features: text input area with proper styling (syntax highlighting preferred), clear buttons for operations (paste/delete/modify), and appropriate keyboard shortcuts. The editor should handle various HTML inputs correctly, including special characters. Deduct 5 points if syntax highlighting is missing, 3 points if keyboard shortcuts aren't implemented, and 2 points if the editor doesn't preserve whitespace formatting. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code editor panel provides essential editing features: text input area with proper styling (syntax highlighting preferred), clear buttons for operations (paste/delete/modify), and appropriate keyboard shortcuts. The editor should handle various HTML inputs correctly, including special characters. Deduct 5 points if syntax highlighting is missing, 3 points if keyboard shortcuts aren't implemented, and 2 points if the editor doesn't preserve whitespace formatting. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Verify that changes in the editor are reflected in real-time in the preview panel without requiring manual refresh. Check if the preview handles updating without flickering and maintains scroll position when appropriate. Implementation should use efficient event listening (e.g., input events with debouncing). Deduct 5 points if updates require manual action, 3 points if there's significant delay (>300ms), and 2 points if the preview flickers during updates. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Verify that changes in the editor are reflected in real-time in the preview panel without requiring manual refresh. Check if the preview handles updating without flickering and maintains scroll position when appropriate. Implementation should use efficient event listening (e.g., input events with debouncing). Deduct 5 points if updates require manual action, 3 points if there's significant delay (>300ms), and 2 points if the preview flickers during updates. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Assess whether the system gracefully handles invalid HTML input without breaking the preview or editor functionality. It should provide user feedback about errors (highlighting or error messages) and attempt to render what it can despite errors. Deduct 5 points if invalid code causes the preview to break completely, 3 points if no error feedback is provided, and 2 points if the system doesn't attempt partial rendering of valid portions. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system gracefully handles invalid HTML input without breaking the preview or editor functionality. It should provide user feedback about errors (highlighting or error messages) and attempt to render what it can despite errors. Deduct 5 points if invalid code causes the preview to break completely, 3 points if no error feedback is provided, and 2 points if the system doesn't attempt partial rendering of valid portions. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as extremely large code inputs, script injection attempts, iframe security issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as extremely large code inputs, script injection attempts, iframe security issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Code formatting/beautifying options 2. Multiple theme support for the editor 3. Ability to save/load snippets locally). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Code formatting/beautifying options 2. Multiple theme support for the editor 3. Ability to save/load snippets locally). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to accomplish the same editing task) 2. Function modules unrelated to code editing and previewing (e.g., a built-in chat system) 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.",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to accomplish the same editing task) 2. Function modules unrelated to code editing and previewing (e.g., a built-in chat system) 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": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/event handling), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global namespace pollution is found or if proper event delegation isn't used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation between structure, presentation, and behavior (HTML/CSS/JS). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/event handling), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global namespace pollution is found or if proper event delegation isn't used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation between structure, presentation, and behavior (HTML/CSS/JS). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "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 (monospace font for editor, appropriate size contrast between panels). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor visual distinction between panels. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "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 (monospace font for editor, appropriate size contrast between panels). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor visual distinction between panels. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Editor responsiveness ≤ 50ms 2) Preview update speed ≤ 300ms 3) Clear visual indication during processing/updating. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag when typing in the editor, 3 points for missing loading indicators during preview updates, and 5 points for interaction elements without hover/focus states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Editor responsiveness ≤ 50ms 2) Preview update speed ≤ 300ms 3) Clear visual indication during processing/updating. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag when typing in the editor, 3 points for missing loading indicators during preview updates, and 5 points for interaction elements without hover/focus states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/webpage-display-realtime-data-specific-stocks-trading-limit.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 240,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please help me write a code program for a webpage that can display real-time data for specific stocks, such as stocks that hit the second trading limit and then broke through that limit in today's A-share market.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the real-time stock data acquisition and handling system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper API connections to retrieve real-time A-share market data (using WebSocket or polling), with appropriate data handling for stock limit calculations. Check if the system correctly identifies stocks hitting the second trading limit and subsequently breaking through. Score 0 if no real-time data connection is implemented, 5 if basic polling is used without WebSocket for true real-time updates, and 10 if a complete real-time data pipeline with proper error handling is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the stock limit detection algorithm accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code correctly implements the logic to detect A-share market trading limits (+10%/-10% or +5%/-5% depending on stock type) and specifically identifies second trading limits and breakthrough events. The algorithm should account for different stock types (main board, ChiNext, STAR Market) which have different limit rules. Deduct 5 points if the algorithm doesn't differentiate between stock types, 3 points if it can't detect second limit breakthroughs correctly, and give 0 points if the core limit detection is flawed.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the data visualization component effectively built?",
-      "description": "Review the visualization of stock data using appropriate charts (candlestick, line, volume) with clear indication of limit points. Charts should include proper labeling, tooltips, and responsive design. Score 10 if visualization includes advanced features like zooming, highlighting breakthrough moments, and interactive elements; 5 if basic visualization is present but lacks interactivity; 0 if visualization is missing or fundamentally flawed.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the real-time alert/notification system implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the system provides timely alerts when stocks hit second limits or break through limits. The notification system should offer visual indicators, sound alerts, and/or browser notifications. Assess whether users can customize alert settings. Deduct 3 points if notifications aren't real-time, 5 points if customization is missing, and give 0 points if no notification system exists at all.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common abnormal situations (such as API failures, data delays, network interruptions, etc.) and provides friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if there's appropriate error handling for market close periods and pre-market/post-market sessions. Score 10 points for comprehensive error handling and recovery strategies, 5 points for basic error handling, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
-      "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. Historical pattern recognition for limit breakthroughs 2. Correlation analysis with market indices 3. Automatic generation of technical analysis for stocks hitting limits). 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 data fetching methods 2. Function modules unrelated to stock tracking (e.g., unnecessary news feeds) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down data updates). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core stock monitoring 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 service/visualization/UI components), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper state management (React context, Redux, etc.) and component 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; 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 financial dashboard standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows financial dashboard best practices: 1) Professional color scheme suitable for financial data (appropriate use of red/green for up/down movements) 2) Clear data hierarchy with primary and secondary information properly distinguished 3) Proper density of information without overwhelming users. Deduct 3 points for poor information hierarchy, 5 points for non-standard financial color coding, and 5 points for overwhelming or cluttered interfaces. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive to market changes?",
-      "description": "Judge whether data updates and UI responses meet financial trading requirements: 1) Data refresh rate appropriate for A-share market movements 2) Clear visual indication of data freshness and last update time 3) Smooth transitions for price changes without disrupting user focus. Deduct 5 points if data appears to lag significantly, 3 points for jarring visual updates that make tracking difficult, and 5 points if there's no indication of data staleness during connection issues. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/webpage-exams-score-calculation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1625,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that any code you generate is executable for demonstration. Source code for automatic score calculation in webpage exams.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core score calculation algorithm correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the algorithm accurately calculates scores based on exam inputs, handles various question types (multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, essay), and applies appropriate weighting. Check for edge cases like partial credit. Score 0 if the core calculation is incorrect, 5 if basic calculation works but lacks handling of complex question types, and 10 if all question types and scoring scenarios are handled accurately.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the input validation and error handling robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate how the code validates user inputs, prevents submission of incomplete answers, and handles edge cases (blank answers, malformed inputs, etc.). Check for defensive programming techniques like form validation, input sanitization, and graceful error handling. Deduct 5 points if basic validation is missing, 3 points if error messages aren't user-friendly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the score persistence and reporting system implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes mechanisms to store scores (localStorage, database integration, etc.), generate reports, and provide analytics. Verify if historical scores are accessible and if comparative analysis features are available. Deduct 5 points if scores aren't persistent across page reloads, 3 points if reporting functionality is limited. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the exam timing and auto-submission functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code handles exam time limits, provides countdown timers, sends warnings when time is running low, and auto-submits when time expires. Check if the timer persists across page reloads. Deduct 5 points for no auto-submission, 3 points for timer inaccuracies, 2 points if time warnings are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (invalid inputs, browser crashes, network issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Test for race conditions in timing and submission functions. 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 score feedback 2. Anti-cheating mechanisms 3. Personalized performance analytics). 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 calculation methods for the same score 2. Unnecessary animations or effects that distract from the exam experience 3. Heavy libraries included but barely used. 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 (separation of UI/scoring logic/data handling), code reusability, and presence of automated tests. Evaluate code structure, naming conventions, and comments. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the exam UI follows modern design principles: 1) Clean layout with clear question grouping 2) Proper visual hierarchy for questions vs. answers 3) Accessible design with sufficient contrast and readable fonts. Deduct 3 points for cluttered question layout, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for confusing navigation between questions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the exam interaction conforms to user expectations: 1) Question navigation is intuitive 2) Answer submission provides immediate feedback 3) Score calculation and display is transparent. Deduct 5 points for laggy response when selecting answers, 3 points for confusing submission process, and 5 points for unclear scoring feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/webpage-for-reading-free-novels.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1333,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable and functional. Help me create a webpage for reading novels, with the requirement that all resources are free.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core novel reading functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements essential reading features: chapter navigation, bookmarking, text display with proper formatting, and reading progress tracking. Score 0 if core reading functionality is missing, 5 if basic text display is implemented, and 10 if all essential reading features are included with smooth transitions between chapters.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the content management system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes functionality to manage novel content: importing/adding new novels, organizing content by categories/genres, search functionality, and history tracking. Deduct 5 points if search functionality is missing, 3 points if category organization is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is user experience for extended reading properly addressed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation includes eye-care features (dark mode, font size adjustment, line spacing, margins), reading time tracking, and mobile responsiveness. Deduct 3 points if font customization is missing, 3 points if dark mode is not implemented, and 4 points if the design isn't responsive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is content sourcing handled legally and efficiently?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code uses legal sources for content (public domain works, user-uploaded content with proper rights management, or APIs with proper attribution). Check if content is cached locally to reduce bandwidth usage. Deduct 5 points if no content source verification exists, 5 points if copyright notices are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, missing book content, broken images, 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. Text-to-speech functionality 2. Reading statistics and analytics 3. Social sharing with highlights 4. Vocabulary builder for difficult words). 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 theme switchers) 2. Function modules unrelated to novel reading (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect loading speed and reading experience (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/data/state management), code reusability, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state is poorly managed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization for large texts is implemented. 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 suitable for extended reading (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (consistent margins, paragraphs properly separated) 3) Professional typography (readable font choices, proper line height 1.5-1.8, optimal line length 60-80 characters). Deduct 3 points for poor spacing, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for cluttered 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) Page turning feels natural with appropriate animations 2) UI controls appear/disappear smoothly when needed 3) Loading indicators for content fetching. Deduct 5 points for jarring page transitions, 3 points for laggy scrolling, and 5 points for hard-to-access reading controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/webpage-security-checklist-scl-to-word-converter.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1239,
-  "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. Based on the security checklist SCL, create a webpage that includes all content and has the functionality to convert to Word.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the security checklist (SCL) content fully implemented in the webpage?",
-      "description": "Review whether the HTML structure properly organizes and presents all sections of the security checklist with appropriate headers, lists, and formatting. Score 0 if the checklist content is incomplete, 5 if basic content is present but poorly structured, and 10 if the full security checklist is comprehensively implemented with proper semantic HTML elements (like <section>, <h1>-<h6>, <ul>/<ol>, etc.).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Word conversion functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the Word document export feature. Check if the code uses appropriate libraries (like docx.js, html-to-docx, or similar) with proper error handling. The exported Word document should maintain the structure, formatting, and completeness of the original checklist. Deduct 5 points if the export works but loses formatting, 3 points if it has compatibility issues with different browsers, and 3 points if it doesn't provide progress feedback during export operations. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the data structure of the security checklist properly organized?",
-      "description": "Assess how the security checklist data is structured in the code. Check if it uses appropriate data structures (arrays, objects) that facilitate filtering, sorting, and categorization of security items. The implementation should demonstrate separation of data and presentation concerns. Deduct 5 points if the data is hardcoded directly in the HTML rather than stored in JavaScript variables/objects, 3 points if the structure doesn't allow for easy modification or extension of the checklist. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are there search, filter, or navigation features to enhance usability of the security checklist?",
-      "description": "Check whether the webpage includes practical features to improve checklist usability such as search functionality, category filters, or quick navigation tools. Also verify if the implementation includes checklist item state management (marking items as complete/incomplete). Score 3 points for basic search implementation, 3 points for filtering capabilities, 2 points for navigation aids, and 2 points for checklist item state tracking. 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 browser compatibility issues, network interruptions during export, unexpected user inputs, 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. Dark mode toggle 2. Automatic saving of checklist progress 3. Security score visualization 4. Export to multiple formats beyond Word). 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 export mechanisms doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to security checklist (e.g., unrelated analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/view/export functionality), code organization, and implementation patterns. 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 input validation. 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 (especially for the export button), 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-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/wechat-login-medical-knowledge-viewer.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 700,
-  "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. Write code for a WeChat login that allows users to view medical knowledge after logging in. Please write each file in detail.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat OAuth login flow properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements the complete WeChat OAuth 2.0 authentication flow, including redirecting to WeChat authorization page, handling callback with auth code, exchanging code for access token, and retrieving user information. Score 0 if the flow is incomplete, 5 if basic login works but lacks proper error handling, and 10 if it's fully implemented with proper state management and CSRF protection.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is secure session management implemented for authenticated users?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code securely manages user sessions after successful WeChat authentication. This includes generating secure session tokens, implementing proper cookie settings (httpOnly, secure, SameSite), session expiration handling, and protection against session fixation attacks. Deduct 5 points if session tokens are not securely generated, 3 points if cookies lack security attributes, and 3 points if there's no session expiration mechanism.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the medical knowledge content system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes a structured system for managing and displaying medical knowledge content. This should include content categorization, search functionality, and proper content rendering with medical terminology support. Deduct 5 points if content is hardcoded rather than dynamically loaded, 3 points if search functionality is missing, and 5 points if there's no proper categorization system.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there proper authentication and authorization for accessing medical content?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the system properly restricts access to medical knowledge based on user authentication status. Check for middleware that verifies user sessions before serving protected content and redirects unauthenticated users to the login flow. Deduct 5 points if authentication checks are inconsistent across routes, 5 points if there are ways to bypass authentication, and 3 points if the login state persistence is not properly implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as WeChat API failures, network interruptions, invalid responses, timeouts) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should 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. Personalized content recommendations based on browsing history 2. Medical terminology tooltip explanations 3. Offline access capability for previously viewed content). 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 authentication methods without clear purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to medical knowledge or authentication (e.g., unrelated social features) 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 auth logic/content management/frontend layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design standards: 1) Harmonious color matching aligned with medical themes (professional blues/greens, not jarring 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 inappropriate color schemes for medical content, 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) Login process feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for important medical information. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during content navigation, and 5 points for hard-to-find key medical content sections. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/wechat-mini-program-intelligent-lighting-design-form.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1351,
-  "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 and demonstrable. Topic: Intelligent lighting design solution. Input: industry, room length and width, height. Help me design a form page implemented with native WeChat Mini Program.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat Mini Program form implementation complete and correct?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements the basic form elements using native WeChat Mini Program components (input, picker, slider, etc.) for collecting industry type, room dimensions, and height. Verify that proper WXML structure, WXSS styling, and JS event handling are included. Score 0 if the core form elements are missing, 5 if basic implementation exists but lacks validation, and 10 if the form is complete with proper data binding and validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the lighting calculation logic implemented properly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes algorithms to calculate appropriate lighting solutions based on the input parameters (industry type, room dimensions, height). Check for industry-specific lighting standards implementation, lux level calculations, fixture quantity recommendations, and positioning suggestions. Deduct 5 points if the calculation lacks industry standards reference, and 3 points if it only provides basic calculations without optimization. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there a visual representation of the lighting solution?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code provides visual feedback of the lighting design through canvas, SVG, or other WeChat Mini Program compatible visualization methods. The visualization should accurately represent the room dimensions and proposed lighting fixtures placement. Deduct 5 points if there's no real-time preview, 3 points if the visualization is static and non-interactive. Give 10 points if the visualization is interactive and updates with input changes.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat Mini Program data management handled effectively?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements proper data management including local storage for saving user inputs, cloud data integration if applicable, and proper state management between pages. Verify that the app can restore previous inputs when reopened. Deduct 5 points if there's no data persistence, 3 points if state management between components is inconsistent. 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, out-of-range values, permission denials, network 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. AR preview of lighting effects 2. Energy consumption calculation 3. Cost estimation based on fixture selection). 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 input the same data) 2. Function modules unrelated to lighting design (e.g., unrelated social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the app). 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/data layers), component reusability, and proper use of WeChat Mini Program best practices. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if the code doesn't follow the WeChat Mini Program development conventions; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no proper error handling and 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 WeChat Mini Program design guidelines: 1) Harmonious color matching consistent with lighting industry aesthetics 2) Proper layout spacing following WeChat's component spacing principles 3) Professional typography system that ensures readability. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for inappropriate color schemes that harm readability, and 5 points for layouts that break on different screen sizes. 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 WeChat Mini Program interaction standards: 1) Form input feedback is immediate 2) Transitions between form sections are smooth 3) Loading states are properly indicated during calculations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for lagging transitions when changing inputs, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/wechat-mini-program-novel-reader.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 431,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable and can be demonstrated. I am a beginner in computer programming, but I want to create a WeChat Mini Program for reading novels. Based on my situation, please design a Mini Program for me with code that can run independently and normally. The novel content should be able to update in real time. Please design this for me.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic structure of the WeChat Mini Program correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes the essential files for a WeChat Mini Program (app.js, app.json, app.wxss, and page files with .js, .json, .wxml, and .wxss extensions). Check if the project structure follows Mini Program conventions and if the configuration in app.json is properly set up with necessary pages, window settings, and tabBar if applicable. Score 0 if the core structure is missing, 5 if basic structure exists but has configuration errors, and 10 if properly implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the novel reading functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements core novel reading features: chapter navigation, content rendering, font size adjustment, background color themes, and reading progress tracking. Check if text rendering handles different character sets and formats properly. Deduct 3 points if chapter navigation is missing, 3 points if font/theme customization is absent, and 4 points if progress tracking is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the real-time content update mechanism properly designed?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes a robust mechanism for novel content updates: API integration for fetching new chapters, efficient caching strategy, and update notifications. Assess whether it handles network failures gracefully with retry logic. Deduct 4 points if there's no proper caching, 3 points if update notifications are missing, and 3 points if offline reading capability is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the user interface designed for optimal reading experience?",
-      "description": "Review if the UI is optimized for reading with proper line spacing, paragraph breaks, comfortable margins, and eye-friendly color schemes. Check if the interface adapts to different screen sizes and orientations. Deduct 3 points for poor text formatting, 4 points for non-responsive design, and 3 points if there's no night mode for comfortable reading in low light. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, API timeouts, malformed responses, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if exception handling covers user operation errors and edge cases. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these issues, 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. Text-to-speech for audio reading 2. Social sharing with comments/annotations 3. Reading statistics and achievements system). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple methods to store reading progress) 2. Function modules unrelated to novel reading (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during page turns). 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 (separation of UI components, data management, and business logic), naming conventions consistency, and comments clarity. Check if the code follows Mini Program best practices. Deduct 4 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is high; deduct 3 points if comments are insufficient or misleading. 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 WeChat Mini Program design principles: 1) Consistent with WeChat's visual language 2) Proper layout spacing and component sizing 3) Professional typography with adequate contrast and readability. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent UI elements, 4 points for poor readability in text display, and 3 points for unintuitive navigation design. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions meet Mini Program performance standards: 1) Page transitions ≤ 300ms 2) Content loading with appropriate feedback 3) Smooth scrolling without jank. Deduct 4 points for laggy page turns, 3 points for missing loading indicators, and 3 points for unresponsive UI during content fetching. Check if the Mini Program adopts proper techniques to optimize performance on low-end devices. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}