@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-file_management/online-file-storage-sharing-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 578,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable when possible. Please write an online file storage and sharing management system where users can upload, download, and delete their own files, and can share files with others through generated sharing links. If a file is shared, the system will record the number of shares. Administrators can log in to the backend to view information about all files and can delete files that do not comply with regulations.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload and download functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements file uploads with chunk handling, progress tracking, and resumable uploads. Check if download functionality includes proper headers for content disposition, content type detection, and download progress indicators. Score 0 if core upload/download functionality is missing, 5 if basic implementation without optimizations, 10 if fully implemented with all optimizations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file sharing mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system generates secure, unique sharing links with optional expiration dates and access controls (view-only vs. download). Check if the sharing counter works correctly and is updated atomically. Deduct 5 points if link security is weak (predictable IDs), 3 points if sharing counter isn't atomic, and 3 points if access controls are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the user authentication and permission system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the system implements proper authentication (with secure password storage), authorization for file operations (users can only manage their own files), and admin privileges (can view all files and delete inappropriate content). Verify session management and CSRF protection. Deduct 5 points for weak authentication, 5 points for permission issues, 3 points for missing session timeouts. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the administration panel functional and comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the admin interface provides file listing with filtering/sorting options, user activity monitoring, content moderation tools, and system statistics. Check if admins can effectively identify and remove inappropriate content. Deduct 3 points if file filtering is missing, 3 points if activity logs are inadequate, 5 points if moderation tools are insufficient. 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 large file uploads, upload interruptions, duplicate filenames, storage quota overflows, invalid file types, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Automatic file categorization/tagging 2. File previews for common formats 3. Version history tracking 4. File encryption options). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload methods with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to file storage/sharing (e.g., built-in chat systems) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during file transfers). 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 storage/authentication/sharing logic), 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 4) Intuitive drag-and-drop file operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during file browsing, 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/pdf-literature-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1019,
-  "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. I want to create a small program:\n\n1. General functionality: Read PDF literature, identify, and summarize\n2. Specific implementation: PDF literature can be categorized through research direction keywords, arranged chronologically, by directional differentiation, research institutions, journals, and other categories in a tree structure (this functionality is key)\n3. When there are many documents, use keywords for selection. The homepage displays keywords, with different sizes representing the quantity of related literature, and different colors and words representing different categories of articles. Clicking on a keyword displays a small tree that can be zoomed in and out to view the scope of literature, somewhat like Apple's classification bar - just a few icons before clicking, but displaying all icons after clicking\n4. Please provide HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code for mobile devices",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "PDF Reading and Text Extraction Functionality",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a working PDF parsing mechanism that can extract text content from uploaded PDF files.0 points if PDF reading is not implemented, 5 points if basic text extraction works but with structure/formatting issues, 10 points if text extraction is robust and preserves document structure.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Literature Summarization and Keyword Extraction",
-      "description": "Evaluate the text analysis capability to identify key information and generate meaningful summaries from academic PDFs.0 points if summarization is absent, 3 points if only basic metadata extraction exists, 7 points if keyword extraction works but summarization is weak, 10 points if both keyword extraction and summarization are robust.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Hierarchical Tree Structure Implementation",
-      "description": "Assess the tree structure implementation for organizing literature by various categories as specified.0 points if tree structure is missing, 5 points if basic tree exists but lacks proper categorization options, 8 points if tree has multiple classification schemes but lacks smooth interaction, 10 points if fully functional with all required categorization options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Keyword Cloud Visualization",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the keyword cloud on the homepage that represents literature quantity through variable sizing.0 points if keyword cloud is absent, 5 points if basic cloud exists but lacks proper sizing/coloring, 8 points if sizing and coloring work but transitions are clunky, 10 points if the visualization is complete with smooth interactions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Code Robustness",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms.0 points if no exception handling exists, 5 points if basic error handling is implemented but recovery mechanisms are missing, 10 points if comprehensive error handling with user-friendly recovery options is present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Innovative Features",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience beyond the core requirements.Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Redundant Features",
-      "description": "Strictly check for unnecessary implementations that complicate the code or user experience.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": "Code Engineering Quality",
-      "description": "Review the overall code architecture, organization, and best practices implementation.Deduct 5 points if global state management is messy; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is high; deduct 5 points if mobile-specific optimizations are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Mobile UI Design Quality",
-      "description": "Assess whether the interface follows professional mobile design principles and is optimized for smaller screens.Deduct 3 points for each non-touch-friendly element, 5 points for non-responsive layouts, and 5 points for text that's too small to read on mobile. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Interaction and Performance",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects and performance are optimized for mobile devices.Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag during interactions, 3 points for rendering issues during transitions, and 5 points for memory issues with multiple documents. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/prescription-details-reference-table.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1479,
-  "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 when possible.\n\nPrescription | Introduction | Formula | Preparation Method | Functions and Indications | Usage and Dosage | Reference\n--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---\nAi'ai Pill | [Formula] White ginger (stir-fried with salt, wine or rice vinegar) 8 qian, Cyperus rotundus (soaked in urine, fried) 1 liang, Corydalis yanhusuo (fried) 8 qian, genuine Donkey-hide gelatin (fried into pearls) 1... | White ginger (stir-fried with salt, wine or rice vinegar) 8 qian, Cyperus rotundus (soaked in urine, fried) 1 liang, Corydalis yanhusuo (fried) 8 qian, genuine Donkey-hide gelatin (fried into pearls) 1... | Grind into powder, mix with wine paste to form pills the size of Chinese parasol tree seeds. | Metrorrhagia, especially effective for elderly women. | 30 pills per dose, taken on empty stomach with salted wine or salt water. | \"Yi Tong\" Volume 84\nAsafoetida and Galangal Pill | [Formula] Green tangerine peel 3 liang, Aged tangerine peel 2 liang, Galangal 2 liang, Red beans 2 liang, Cinnamon (coarse skin removed) 1 liang, Amomum (peel removed) 2 liang, Eupatorium (roasted) 2... | Green tangerine peel 3 liang, Aged tangerine peel 2 liang, Galangal 2 liang, Red beans 2 liang, Cinnamon (coarse skin removed) 1 liang, Amomum (peel removed) 2 liang, Eupatorium (roasted) 2... | Grind into fine powder and mix evenly, form pills with flour paste the size of mung beans. | Long-term use greatly nourishes spleen and stomach, clears stomach emptiness, improves appetite, eliminates cold dampness, strengthens and warms the body. Treats weakness in the three abdominal regions, accumulated cold in middle energizer, weak spleen digestion, slow digestion of food and drinks... | 50 pills per dose, taken with mild ginger soup, anytime, twice daily. | \"Hong's Collected Verified Prescriptions\" quoted from Shangguan Zhubo's prescription\nAsafoetida Pill | Index \"Asafoetida Pill\" in \"Revised Yan's Life-saving Formulas\", \"Asafoetida Pill\" in \"Danxi's Methods of Mental Cultivation\" Volume 3, \"Asafoetida Pill\" in \"Danxi's Methods of Mental Cultivation\" Volume 3... | Costus root (uncooked) and Areca nut 15g each, Pepper and Asafoetida (dissolved in vinegar, added gradually) 7.5g each | Grind into fine powder, mix with Asafoetida paste and glutinous rice to form pills the size of Chinese parasol tree seeds. | Qi accumulation, meat accumulation, abdominal distention with lumps and pain. May cause pain in the sides and ribs, or pain extending to the back, and loss of appetite. | 40 pills per dose, anytime, taken with fresh ginger and tangerine peel soup. | \"Revised Yan's Life-saving Formulas\"\nI want to create a table similar to this",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the table structure properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the HTML code correctly implements a responsive data table with appropriate structure (thead, tbody), proper column alignment, and mobile compatibility. Check if the table headers are properly defined and if the data rows maintain consistent formatting. Score 0 if the table is not implemented at all, 5 if basic structure exists but has significant layout issues, and 10 if the table is fully structured with proper semantic markup.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the data organization and display complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether all seven columns (Prescription, Introduction, Formula, Preparation Method, Functions and Indications, Usage and Dosage, Reference) are properly implemented and populated with sample data. Each column should display the content with appropriate formatting and text wrapping. Deduct 2 points for each missing column or severely malformatted column. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are sorting and filtering capabilities implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the implementation includes functionality for users to sort the table by different columns (e.g., alphabetically by prescription name) and filter content (e.g., search for specific herbs or indications). Deduct 5 points if sorting is missing, 5 points if filtering/search is absent, and 3 points if these features are implemented but perform poorly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there pagination or efficient handling of large datasets?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes mechanisms for handling potentially large datasets, such as pagination, virtualization, or lazy loading. The implementation should maintain performance even with hundreds of prescription entries. Deduct 5 points if no pagination/virtualization exists, 3 points if it exists but has performance issues with large datasets, and 2 points if the pagination controls are not intuitive. 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 missing data fields, extremely long text content, special characters in prescription names, etc.) and provide appropriate fallbacks or error handling. 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. Expandable rows for detailed information 2. Interactive herb glossary with tooltips 3. Unit conversion for traditional measurements). 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 sorting mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the prescription table (e.g., unrelated widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 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/controller layers), code reusability, and appropriate use of libraries or frameworks. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no consideration is given to performance optimization for large data sets. 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 table design principles: 1) Appropriate use of borders, dividers and whitespace 2) Consistent typography with readable font sizes (≥ 14px for body text) 3) Visual hierarchy that distinguishes headers from data. Deduct 3 points for cluttered cell formatting, 5 points for poor contrast making text difficult to read, and 5 points for inconsistent column widths or poorly aligned content. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Responsive sorting/filtering with visual feedback ≤ 200ms 2) Smooth transitions when showing/hiding content 3) Hover states and clear actionable elements. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy interactions when handling large data sets, and 5 points for unintuitive interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/simple-webpage-download-synology-nas-files.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 825,
-  "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 display. Help me create a simple webpage that can download files from a web folder in a Synology NAS.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the NAS connection and authentication mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review if the code provides proper authentication methods for Synology NAS (username/password, token-based, or OAuth). Verify error handling for authentication failures and timeout management. Score 0 if no authentication is implemented, 5 if basic authentication is present but lacks security features, and 10 if secure authentication with proper session management is fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file browsing functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes functions to browse directory structure, display file listings with metadata (size, date, type), and handle pagination for large directories. Verify that it properly handles special characters in filenames and hidden files. Give 10 points if fully implemented with sorting options, 5 points if basic browsing works but lacks features, 0 points if browsing is non-functional.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the file download mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code correctly implements file download functionality, including handling both small and large files, proper MIME type detection, and download progress indicators. Check for the ability to handle concurrent downloads and resumed downloads. Deduct 5 points if large file downloads aren't handled properly, 3 points if no download progress is shown. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is error handling comprehensive for network and file operations?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of error handling for common scenarios like network timeouts, file not found, permission issues, and interrupted downloads. Check whether user-friendly error messages are displayed and recovery options are provided. Score 10 points if all common error cases are handled elegantly, 5 points if basic error handling exists, 0 points if errors crash the application.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as server disconnection, invalid paths, 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. Thumbnail previews for image files 2. Batch download functionality 3. Search capabilities across directories). 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 listing methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to file browsing/downloading (e.g., a built-in media player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 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/API/download logic), error handling consistency, 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 presentation and business logic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for download buttons and actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for long loading times without indicators, and 5 points for confusing navigation or download workflow. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/timeline-based-file-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 555,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Design a timeline-based file management system where all files uploaded by users generate a timeline based on upload times. Users can quickly find specific files by dragging a timeline slider.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload and timeline organization system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload functionality with proper validation, storage handling, and timestamp recording. Check if the timeline organization is implemented with appropriate data structures for efficient retrieval based on timestamps. Score 0 if core upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works but lacks proper timestamp handling, and 10 if the system includes complete file metadata tracking with reliable timestamp-based organization.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the timeline slider UI component properly designed and interactive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the slider component that allows users to navigate the timeline. Check for smooth dragging functionality, proper event handling, responsive updates, and visual feedback during interaction. The slider should accurately represent the time distribution of files. Deduct 5 points if the slider doesn't update the file view in real-time, and 3 points if it lacks visual cues about file density across different time periods. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the file visualization and time-based filtering mechanism implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system dynamically updates the file display as users drag the timeline slider. Assess if the filtering mechanism correctly identifies and displays files within the selected time range. Examine whether the system handles time zones properly and provides clear temporal context. Deduct 5 points if filtering has noticeable lag (>200ms), and 3 points if time range selection lacks precision controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a complete file management functionality beyond timeline navigation?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes comprehensive file management features such as previewing, downloading, renaming, deleting, and categorizing files. Check if these operations integrate properly with the timeline system and maintain data consistency. Deduct 5 points if basic file operations are missing, and 3 points if operations don't update the timeline view accordingly. Give 10 points if fully implemented with seamless timeline integration.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as upload failures, invalid file types, large file handling, timeline edge cases, 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-based file content categorization 2. Timeline visualization with heat map showing upload frequency 3. Time-based file clustering or pattern recognition). 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 timeline navigation methods that serve the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to timeline-based file management (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down timeline navigation). 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 logic/timeline visualization/UI components), 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 timeline slider and file display updates conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Timeline drag response delay ≤ 100ms 2) File display transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indication of selected time period. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual stuttering during timeline navigation, and 5 points for confusion between timeline position and displayed files. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/user-group-file-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 567,
-  "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. Develop a user group file management system where different users can be assigned to different groups, each group has an independent file storage area, and administrators can adjust user groupings.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user authentication and authorization system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements comprehensive user authentication (login/registration) and proper authorization controls. Check if it includes password hashing, session management, and role-based access controls (admin vs regular user). Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic authentication exists but lacks security features, 10 if it implements secure authentication with proper session management and RBAC.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the group management functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code provides complete CRUD operations for user groups. Check if administrators can create groups, add/remove users from groups, and modify group properties. Verify that group membership validation occurs before any file access. Deduct 3 points if group creation lacks validation, 3 points if user assignment to groups has vulnerabilities, and 4 points if group permission inheritance is flawed. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the file management system complete and secure?",
-      "description": "Check if the system implements file upload, download, listing, deletion, and proper access control based on group membership. Verify that file operations respect group boundaries and prevent unauthorized access. Deduct 3 points if file storage lacks proper path sanitization, 3 points if no file type validation exists, 2 points if quota management is missing, and 2 points if there's no file version control or backup mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the admin interface comprehensive and secure?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the administrator dashboard provides all necessary tools for user/group management and system monitoring. Check if admin operations are properly logged and if there are safeguards against accidental or malicious actions. Deduct 3 points if the admin can't view comprehensive user activity, 3 points if bulk operations aren't supported, and 4 points if critical admin actions lack confirmation dialogs or undo capabilities. 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 user inputs, file corruption, disk space exhaustion, database connection failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time file collaboration 2. Automated file categorization and tagging 3. Smart search with content indexing 4. File access 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 implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple user verification methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file or user management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the file browser). 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 access/business logic/presentation 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 file browsing, 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/vue-pdf-signature-approval-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 871,
-  "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. I am a frontend engineer using Vue 3 and Element Plus. As shown in the image, the requirement is to have PDF display on the left side and signature with approval comments on the right side. This involves multiple-page PDF document approval, incorporating signatures and approval comments where the signature is an image and the approval comment is text. After completing the approval, a new PDF needs to be generated. Please think about how to implement this and provide code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the PDF rendering and multi-page display functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements PDF rendering using libraries like pdf.js or vue-pdf, supports multi-page navigation, zoom controls, and proper viewport handling. Check if page thumbnails, page jumping, and smooth scrolling between pages are implemented. Score 0 if PDF cannot be displayed, 5 if only basic single-page display works, and 10 if full multi-page navigation with zoom and responsive layout is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the signature and approval comment integration system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the right panel correctly handles image signature uploads (with format validation for PNG/JPG), text approval comments with rich text editing capabilities, and proper positioning/scaling relative to PDF pages. Check if signature placement, resizing, and comment threading are functional. Deduct 5 points if signature image handling is missing, 3 points if comment positioning is inaccurate. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the coordinate mapping and annotation positioning system accurate?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system accurately maps UI coordinates to PDF coordinate system, handles different zoom levels and page rotations correctly, and maintains annotation positions when switching between pages. Evaluate if coordinate transformation handles viewport changes and maintains precision. Deduct 5 points if annotations drift during zoom, 3 points if positioning fails on page rotation. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the PDF generation and export functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements PDF generation using libraries like jsPDF or PDFLib to merge original PDF with signatures and comments, maintains original document quality, and handles multi-page export correctly. Check if generated PDF preserves all annotations and maintains proper formatting. Deduct 5 points if export quality is degraded, 5 points if annotations are lost during generation. 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 PDF files, oversized signature images, network interruption during file upload, browser memory limitations with large PDFs, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the approval experience (e.g., 1. Batch signature application across multiple pages 2. Approval workflow with multiple reviewers 3. Real-time collaborative editing 4. OCR text recognition for searchable comments 5. Approval history timeline). 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 PDF processing libraries or duplicate rendering logic 2. Unnecessary UI components unrelated to PDF approval (e.g., built-in media players, unrelated widgets) 3. Performance-heavy visual effects that slow down PDF rendering (e.g., excessive animations during page transitions). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core PDF functionality is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review Vue 3 Composition API usage, proper component decomposition (PDF viewer, signature panel, annotation components), TypeScript integration, and Element Plus component optimization. Deduct 5 points if reactive state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if components are not properly separated; deduct 5 points if no build optimization for PDF libraries. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the dual-panel layout follows professional document review interfaces: 1) Proper contrast ratio between PDF background and UI elements 2) Clear visual hierarchy with PDF on left and controls on right 3) Consistent Element Plus theme integration with professional color scheme 4) Appropriate spacing following 8px grid system. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for poor contrast affecting PDF readability, and 5 points for inconsistent Element Plus styling. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether PDF interactions are responsive and professional: 1) Page transitions under 200ms 2) Smooth zoom operations without lag 3) Real-time signature preview during placement 4) Immediate visual feedback for annotation actions 5) Responsive layout adaptation. Deduct 5 points for each sluggish PDF operation, 3 points for delayed annotation feedback, and 5 points for poor mobile/tablet responsiveness. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/vue-word-document-editor-import-export.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 826,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Implement Word document import with online editing in a Vue project, with the ability to save and then export it.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Word document import functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements Word document parsing through Vue.js components, including support for multiple formats (.docx, .doc), proper handling of document structure (paragraphs, tables, images, formatting), and preservation of original document styling. Score 0 if basic import is not working, 5 if only plain text import is supported, and 10 if complete document structure and formatting are preserved during import.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the online editing system comprehensively functional?",
-      "description": "Check whether the Vue-based editor includes essential editing features: rich text formatting (bold, italic, underline, font selection), paragraph alignment, list management, table insertion/editing, image handling, and undo/redo operations. Verify real-time content synchronization and cursor position management. Deduct 5 points if table editing is missing, 3 points if formatting toolbar is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the document save mechanism properly designed with version control?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the save functionality implements auto-save intervals (every 30-60 seconds), manual save triggers, and proper data persistence. Check for version history tracking, conflict resolution for concurrent edits, and data integrity validation. Deduct 5 points if auto-save is missing, 3 points if no version tracking exists. Verify that save operations handle network failures gracefully. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the document export functionality complete and accurate?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes comprehensive export capabilities that maintain document fidelity when converting back to Word format. Verify support for multiple export formats (.docx, .pdf), preservation of formatting, images, tables, and document metadata. Evaluate export speed and file size optimization. Deduct 5 points if formatting is lost during export, 3 points if images are not properly embedded. Give 10 points if export maintains 100% visual fidelity.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted document files, network interruption during save/export, large file uploads, browser memory limitations, 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 collaborative editing with multiple cursors 2. Smart content suggestions and auto-complete 3. Document commenting and review system 4. Advanced search and replace with regex support 5. Template library 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 save mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to document editing (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during typing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core document editing functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review Vue.js best practices implementation (proper component composition, Vuex/Pinia state management, router configuration), modular design separating document processing/editor/storage layers, TypeScript usage, unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if Vue reactivity is misused or component lifecycle is not properly managed; 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 document editor interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clean toolbar design with intuitive icons 2) Proper document canvas layout with realistic paper appearance 3) Harmonious color scheme suitable for long reading sessions 4) Professional typography with appropriate font rendering 5) Responsive design for different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered interface element, 5 points for poor contrast ratios affecting readability, and 5 points for non-intuitive navigation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the editing experience conforms to user expectations: 1) Typing response delay ≤ 50ms with no input lag 2) Smooth scrolling performance even with large documents 3) Instant formatting application without flicker 4) Responsive toolbar interactions 5) Smooth import/export progress indicators. Deduct 5 points for each noticeable performance bottleneck, 3 points for choppy animations during editing, and 5 points for unresponsive UI elements during document processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}