@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-file_management/building-blueprint-management-system-cad-viewer.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 565,
-  "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. Implement a building blueprint management system that allows online preview of CAD files, supports layer toggle control, provides version comparison (highlighting modified sections), allows construction teams to submit questions about drawings (pinpointing specific coordinates), and automatically generates change notification forms.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the online CAD file preview system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements a web-based CAD viewer using technologies like Three.js, SVG, or canvas. Check for essential viewing controls (pan/zoom/rotate), proper rendering of CAD formats (DXF/DWG), and handling of large files through progressive loading or LOD techniques. Score 0 if no preview functionality exists, 5 if basic viewing is implemented, and 10 if a complete professional-grade CAD viewing experience is provided.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the layer toggle control system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of layer management, including visibility toggles for each layer, proper naming/organization, and performance optimization when toggling multiple layers. Check if the system preserves layer information from original CAD files and if layer states persist between sessions. Deduct 5 points if layer categories are not hierarchically organized, 3 points if toggling causes performance issues, and 2 points if layer visibility states are not saved. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the version comparison and highlight functionality effective?",
-      "description": "Examine the diff visualization system that highlights changes between blueprint versions. Check for color-coded change indication (additions/modifications/deletions), ability to toggle between versions, and performance when comparing complex drawings. Proper implementation should include metadata about what changed and when. Deduct 5 points if the comparison is manual rather than automated, 3 points if only basic highlighting is available, and 2 points if the system can't handle complex blueprint differences. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the coordinate-based question submission system implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of the annotation/question system that allows construction teams to submit queries about specific coordinates. Check for spatial pinpointing accuracy, metadata capture (who/when/what), notification system for responses, and historical tracking of resolved questions. A robust implementation should include categorization of question types and priority levels. Deduct 3 points if coordinate accuracy is poor, 3 points if there's no tracking system, and 4 points if the question resolution workflow is incomplete. 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 malformed CAD files, network interruptions, concurrent edits, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted blueprint analysis to detect potential design conflicts 2. AR/VR integration for immersive blueprint review 3. Automated measurement tools that calculate materials needed). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file parsers doing the same job) 2. Function modules unrelated to blueprint management (e.g., a built-in generic chat system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 3D animations when 2D would suffice). 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 CAD processing/UI/annotation layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast CAD manipulation, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/csharp-sql-server-image-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 452,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please design an image management system using Visual Studio C# that can store images from a folder into a SQL Server database table through a form interface, and also read images from the SQL Server table and display them one by one. How should this be implemented?",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the database design and connection properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes appropriate table schema with image data type (varbinary/image), proper connection string management, and parameterized queries to prevent SQL injection. Check if error handling for database connections is implemented. Score 0 if database connectivity is missing, 5 if basic connection exists but has security issues, 10 if fully implemented with transaction support and connection pooling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the image import functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code allows browsing and selecting folder(s), handles multiple file formats (at least JPG, PNG, GIF, BMP), validates file sizes and types, shows progress during batch uploads, and properly converts images to binary data. Deduct 3 points if no file type validation exists, 3 points if progress indication is missing during large uploads, and 5 points if multi-file selection is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the image retrieval and display functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code efficiently loads images from the database, implements pagination or lazy loading for large collections, provides thumbnail generation, and properly handles image display with zoom/pan capabilities. Score 0 if image retrieval is not implemented, 5 if basic display exists but lacks optimization, and 10 if advanced features like caching and metadata display are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are image manipulation features available?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the application includes basic image manipulation features such as rotation, resizing, cropping, adding metadata, or applying simple filters before saving to the database. Each implemented feature counts for 2 points, with a maximum of 10 points. If no manipulation features are available, score 0.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as database connection failures, invalid image files, out-of-memory issues during large image processing, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for exception handling, input validation, and graceful degradation. 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. Image metadata extraction and searching 2. Facial recognition for organizing photos 3. Batch processing with customizable templates 4. Cloud backup integration). 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 image loading methods that do the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to image management (e.g., a built-in web browser) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during database operations). 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 database access/business logic/UI layers), naming conventions adherence, commenting quality, and error logging. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 3 points if the code lacks proper documentation; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%). Check if the code follows C# best practices and design patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows Windows design guidelines: 1) Consistent control spacing and alignment 2) Proper form layout (logical grouping of controls) 3) Appropriate use of standard Windows controls vs. custom controls 4) Responsive design that handles window resizing. Deduct 3 points for misaligned controls, 3 points for confusing navigation, and 5 points for non-standard UI patterns that would confuse users. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the application performance optimized?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the application handles resources efficiently: 1) Proper memory management when dealing with large images 2) Database query optimization (indexing, paging) 3) Background processing for time-consuming operations 4) Resource disposal using IDisposable pattern. Deduct 3 points for memory leaks, 3 points for UI freezing during operations, 5 points for inefficient database queries loading entire image collections at once. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/draggable-directory-upload-page.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1669,
-  "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. Create a page with draggable directory upload functionality using HTML and JavaScript.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the drag-and-drop directory upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements the core HTML5 FileSystem API with proper directory reading capabilities. Verify that it handles the 'webkitdirectory' attribute for input elements and uses DataTransfer API for drag operations. Score 0 if drag-and-drop is not implemented, 5 if only file (not directory) upload works, and 10 if full directory structure upload is supported with proper event handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the directory structure properly maintained and displayed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the uploaded directory structure is preserved and visually represented to the user. Check if the code processes the relative paths from FileList entries and rebuilds the nested structure accurately. Deduct 5 points if folders are flattened, 3 points if subfolder nesting is limited to a single level. Award full points only if the complete directory hierarchy is preserved with proper indentation or tree visualization.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are appropriate file handling mechanisms implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of file handling including type detection, size validation, and preview generation. Check if the code provides file type icons, size formatting (KB/MB), and thumbnail previews for supported formats (images, PDFs). Deduct 3 points if there's no file size limit, 4 points if file type validation is missing, and 3 points if there are no file previews. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there proper user feedback during the upload process?",
-      "description": "Check if the code provides visual feedback for the upload process including drag-over states, progress indicators, success/error notifications, and abort capabilities. Deduct 3 points for missing drag-over visual cues, 4 points for no upload progress indicator, and 3 points for absence of completion/error feedback. 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 unsupported browsers, invalid file types, empty directories, oversized files, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Instant search within uploaded files 2. Auto-categorization of files by type 3. File preview directly in the interface). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file parsing methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to directory upload (e.g., unnecessary 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 UI/logic/data processing layers), event delegation usage, and memory management. Deduct 5 points if global namespace 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 memory leaks are detected in large file handling. 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 upload area styling (clear drop zone with proper contrast). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for an ambiguous drop target 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) Immediate visual feedback when dragging over drop zone 2) Smooth transition animations for file listing (300-500ms) 3) Clear visual hierarchy in directory tree display. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for janky animations during directory expansion, and 5 points for confusing interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/electron-vue-file-management-sidebar.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 363,
-  "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. Implement a file management system similar to VSCode's left sidebar directory panel using Electron + Vue 3.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the directory tree structure implementation complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete hierarchical directory tree that can display folders and files with proper indentation, icons, and visual hierarchy. Check if it supports both file and folder operations (create, rename, delete). Score 0 if the directory structure is not implemented, 5 if only basic display is implemented, and 10 if it fully mimics VSCode's directory panel functionality including drag-and-drop capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Electron and Vue 3 integration correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code properly integrates Electron for native file system access and Vue 3 for UI rendering. Verify if IPC (Inter-Process Communication) is set up between the main and renderer processes, with proper error handling for file system operations. Deduct 5 points if there's no separation between main and renderer processes, and 3 points if Vue 3 Composition API isn't utilized effectively. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are file system operations implemented with appropriate error handling?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper implementations for reading directory contents, creating files/folders, deleting, renaming, and moving files with comprehensive error handling. Check if asynchronous operations are handled correctly and if there's a loading state during file operations. Deduct 5 points for missing critical operations (like delete or rename), and 3 points for inadequate error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the implementation include VSCode-like interactive features?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code includes VSCode-specific features like context menus on right-click, keyboard shortcuts for operations, file icons based on file types, and collapse/expand folder functionality. Check for additional features like file filtering or search functionality. Deduct 3 points for each missing key VSCode feature, and award full 10 points only if the implementation closely mimics VSCode's sidebar behavior.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as permission errors, missing files, large directory structures, special characters in filenames, 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. File preview on hover 2. Custom file grouping options 3. Recently modified files highlighting). 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 refresh the file tree) 2. Function modules unrelated to file management (e.g., a built-in text editor when it's just supposed to be a sidebar) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when expanding folders). 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 file system logic/UI components/event handling), component reusability, and build process configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the Electron security practices are not followed (like proper Content-Security-Policy). 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 VSCode's design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme matching VSCode's themes 2) Proper layout spacing and indentation for directory levels 3) Professional icon system for different file types. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent visual elements, 5 points for a design that significantly deviates from VSCode's aesthetic, and 5 points for poor visual hierarchy in the directory structure. 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 VSCode's interaction patterns: 1) Immediate feedback when selecting files/folders 2) Smooth animations for expanding/collapsing folders 3) Responsive context menus without delay. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy interactions when handling large directories, and 5 points for unintuitive interaction patterns that differ from VSCode. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/file-tag-management-platform.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 684,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Create a file tag management platform where users can upload files and add multiple tags (such as 'work', 'important', etc.) to each file, supporting quick filtering of files by tags.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload functionality through HTML/JavaScript, including drag-and-drop upload, progress bars, file type validation, and size limits. Check if multiple file formats are supported (documents, images, videos, etc.) and if upload status feedback is provided. Score 0 if core upload logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload is implemented, and 10 if all upload features including validation and progress tracking are fully included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the tag management system comprehensively designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the tag system includes complete CRUD operations: creating new tags, editing existing tags, deleting unused tags, and batch tag operations. Check if tag autocomplete, tag hierarchy/categories, and tag color coding are implemented. Deduct 5 points if tag validation is missing, and 3 points if duplicate tag prevention is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the file filtering and search mechanism efficient and accurate?",
-      "description": "Check whether the filtering system supports multiple tag combinations (AND/OR logic), fuzzy search by filename, date range filtering, and file type filtering. Evaluate if real-time search results update as users type and if advanced filtering options are provided. Deduct 5 points if search performance is poor (>500ms response time), and 3 points if filtering logic is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the data persistence and file management architecture robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system includes proper data storage (local storage/database integration), file metadata management, and backup mechanisms. Check if file versioning, bulk operations (delete, move, export), and data export/import functionality are implemented. Deduct 5 points if data consistency is not maintained, and 3 points if file integrity checks are missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper architecture.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as file upload failures, network interruption, invalid file types, storage quota exceeded, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered auto-tagging suggestions 2. File preview thumbnails with quick actions 3. Tag-based file sharing links 4. Visual tag cloud representation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file sorting mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file management (e.g., a built-in text editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during file operations). 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 file handling/UI/storage layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for file lists and tag displays. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic file/tag 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) File upload feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Tag filtering response time ≤ 200ms 3) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 4) Clear visual focus guidance during file operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual lag during file list updates, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/file-upload-question-organizer-download.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1800,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable and functional. Help me create a webpage that allows users to upload files including Word, Excel, and PDF formats. The webpage should help me organize the questions contained in these files, format them properly, and provide a download option.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly handles file uploads with appropriate input controls, MIME type validation, and error handling for Word, Excel, and PDF formats. Check if the code includes progress indicators and clear user feedback during upload. Score 0 if file upload is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload without validation is present, and 10 if complete with validation, progress indicators, and proper error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file parsing mechanism correctly implemented for multiple formats?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can accurately extract content from Word (.doc/.docx), Excel (.xls/.xlsx), and PDF files. Check if appropriate libraries are used (e.g., mammoth.js for Word, SheetJS for Excel, PDF.js for PDF). Deduct 3 points for each unsupported format. Deduct 5 points if the parsing is unreliable or incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is question extraction and organization functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code can intelligently identify questions from extracted content using pattern matching, machine learning, or rule-based approaches. Verify if questions are grouped by topic, type, or difficulty. Score 0 if question extraction is not implemented, 5 if basic extraction without categorization is present, and 10 if sophisticated extraction with proper organization is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is proper formatting and export functionality provided?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code allows users to format extracted questions (adjusting styles, rearranging, editing) and provides export options in various formats. Check if the exported files maintain formatting integrity. Deduct 3 points if formatting options are limited, 5 points if export functionality is missing key formats, and 5 points if the exported content loses critical formatting. 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 corrupted files, extremely large files, unsupported formats, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered question categorization 2. Question difficulty estimation 3. Interactive question preview with formatting). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file parsing libraries for the same file type) 2. Function modules unrelated to question extraction (e.g., a built-in social media sharing system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during file processing). 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 file handling/parsing/UI layers), error handling strategy, 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 separation between UI 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) Clear visual hierarchy for file upload, processing, and download sections. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor information architecture. 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) File upload feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Clear visual indication during file processing with accurate progress reporting 3) Intuitive question organization interface with drag-and-drop capability. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for laggy UI during file processing, and 5 points for confusing navigation between upload, organization, and download steps. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/file-upload-to-cloud-server.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1334,
-  "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. Design a file upload process that uploads files to a cloud file server, and implement it with code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload implementation fully functional?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file selection, validation, and upload functionality. Check if it handles multiple file types, size restrictions, and provides proper upload controls. Score 0 if core upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works but lacks validation, and 10 if it includes robust file selection, validation, and upload mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the cloud storage integration properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper authentication and integration with cloud services (AWS S3, Google Cloud Storage, Azure Blob, etc.). Check for proper credential management, endpoint configuration, and error handling. Deduct 5 points if credentials are hardcoded, 3 points if there's no proper error handling for cloud service failures. Full score requires secure authentication, proper bucket/container configuration, and comprehensive error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the implementation include progress tracking and status updates?",
-      "description": "Check if the code provides real-time progress updates during file upload, including percentage completion, transfer speed, and estimated time remaining. Verify that users receive clear visual feedback about the upload status (queued, uploading, completed, failed). Deduct 5 points if there's no progress tracking, and 3 points if status updates are incomplete or unclear. Give 10 points for comprehensive progress tracking with appropriate UI elements.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there proper error handling and retry mechanism?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code handles common upload failures (network interruptions, server errors, timeouts) and provides retry capabilities. Check if it implements chunked uploads for large files to handle interruptions gracefully. Deduct 5 points if error handling is minimal, and 3 points if retry functionality is missing. Full score requires comprehensive error handling, user-friendly error messages, and intelligent retry mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases such as zero-byte files, files with special characters in names, very large files, simultaneous uploads, and browser compatibility issues. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these scenarios, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no edge cases are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Drag-and-drop file upload 2. Image preview before upload 3. Automatic file compression 4. Resumable uploads 5. Client-side encryption). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file selection methods that do the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to file upload (e.g., unnecessary image editing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during upload). 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/API/validation logic), error handling strategies, and code 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 documentation or comments for key functions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clear visual hierarchy for upload controls 2) Proper feedback indicators (loading spinners, progress bars) 3) Consistent styling with proper spacing and alignment. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layout, 5 points for inconsistent visual elements, and 5 points for poor accessibility features (e.g., no keyboard support, missing ARIA attributes). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Upload button feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth progress animations 3) Clear visual states for different upload phases (queued, uploading, complete, error). Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky animations or progress updates, and 5 points if the user can't easily distinguish between different upload states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/frontend-worker-threads-stream-processing-file-uploads.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 229,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Frontend implementation of Worker Threads + Stream processing for file uploads.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Worker Thread implementation correctly configured and functional?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements Web Workers for file processing, including correct worker script registration, message passing mechanisms, and data transfer protocols. Check if the worker handles file chunking, progress calculation, and error propagation. Score 0 if workers are not implemented, 5 if basic worker setup exists but lacks proper communication, and 10 if full bidirectional communication with proper error handling is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Stream processing mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code uses modern Stream APIs (ReadableStream, WritableStream, TransformStream) for efficient file processing. Check for proper backpressure handling, chunk size optimization, and memory management. Deduct 5 points if using outdated FileReader instead of streams, 3 points if backpressure is not handled, and 2 points if chunk size is not optimized for performance. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the file upload functionality comprehensive and robust?",
-      "description": "Check whether the upload system includes resume capability, file validation (type, size, integrity), progress tracking, and concurrent upload handling. Evaluate if the code supports large file uploads (>100MB) efficiently. Deduct 5 points if resume functionality is missing, 3 points if file validation is incomplete, and 2 points if progress tracking is inaccurate. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the performance optimization strategy effectively implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements proper performance optimizations including worker pool management, memory usage optimization, and upload queue management. Check for efficient resource cleanup and prevention of memory leaks. Deduct 5 points if worker instances are not properly managed, 3 points if memory cleanup is insufficient, and 2 points if concurrent upload limits are not implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruption, file corruption, worker crashes, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time file preview during upload 2. Smart compression based on file type 3. Drag-and-drop with visual feedback 4. Upload analytics and optimization suggestions). 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 progress tracking systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to file upload (e.g., built-in image editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during upload). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core upload functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating upload logic/UI/worker management), proper error handling patterns, and TypeScript usage if applicable. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper module separation is not implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if worker management is not properly abstracted. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload interface follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching with clear visual hierarchy 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear upload status indicators. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor color contrast, and 5 points for unclear progress indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the upload interactions conform to user expectations: 1) File selection feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Progress updates smooth and consistent 3) Clear visual feedback for drag-and-drop operations 4) Responsive cancel/pause controls. Deduct 5 points for each operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for jerky progress animations, and 5 points for confusing upload states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}