@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/music-material-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 520,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible.\n\n## Role ##\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are given a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code according to the project requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand language comments. Don't output anything else.\n\n## Output Rules ##\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code, and ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output to evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or use of user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data\n\n## Project Requirements Description ##\nPlease write code to implement a music material management system where musicians can upload their audio files, set metadata such as BPM and key, add categorization tags. The system should support online audio playback, waveform display, audio editing, favorites organization, and provide advanced search functionality by style, mood, length and other attributes.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload and management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements audio file upload with proper validation (format, size limits), metadata extraction/editing (BPM, key, duration), and categorization tag management. Check if file storage is properly handled with unique naming and path management. Score 0 if core upload functionality is missing, 5 if only basic upload is implemented without metadata handling, and 10 if complete audio management with validation and metadata is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the online audio playback and waveform visualization implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the audio player includes standard controls (play/pause/seek/volume), real-time waveform display using Web Audio API or Canvas, and visual progress indicators. Evaluate if waveform rendering is smooth and responsive. Deduct 5 points if waveform display is missing or non-functional, 3 points if playback controls are incomplete or unresponsive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the audio editing functionality designed with proper tools?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides essential audio editing capabilities such as trim/cut, fade in/out, volume adjustment, and basic effects. Check if editing operations are reflected in real-time waveform updates and if changes can be saved/exported. Deduct 5 points if only basic trim functionality exists, 3 points if real-time preview is missing. Give 10 points if comprehensive editing tools are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the advanced search and filtering system constructed effectively?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes comprehensive search functionality by multiple attributes (style, mood, BPM range, key, duration, tags) with proper indexing and filtering logic. Evaluate if search results are displayed efficiently with pagination or infinite scroll. Deduct 5 points if search is limited to basic text matching, 3 points if performance optimization is missing for large datasets. Give 10 points if fully implemented with advanced filtering options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, network interruption during upload, unsupported formats, 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 music management experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered BPM/key detection 2. Collaborative playlist creation 3. Audio similarity matching 4. Spectral analysis visualization 5. Smart tagging 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 audio player instances) 2. Function modules unrelated to music management (e.g., built-in social media integration) 3. Fancy effects that affect audio performance (e.g., excessive visual animations during playback). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core audio 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 audio processing/UI/data management layers), proper error handling, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or audio context is not properly managed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if audio resources are not properly disposed of to prevent memory leaks. 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 music application design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching suitable for audio interfaces (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing for music controls (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for audio metadata display. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic audio control layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the audio interface interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Audio control response delay ≤ 50ms 2) Waveform rendering smooth at 60fps 3) Smooth transitions between different views 4) Clear visual feedback for all audio operations 5) Intuitive drag-and-drop for file uploads. Deduct 5 points for each audio operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for laggy waveform display, and 5 points for unresponsive audio controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/nba-fan-community-web-application-architecture.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1454,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible.\n\n+-----------------------------+\n|          Access Layer       |\n|-----------------------------|\n| PC Client                   |\n+-----------------------------+\n            ↓\n+-----------------------------+\n|          Frontend UI        |\n|-----------------------------|\n| HTML                        |\n| CSS                         |\n| JavaScript                  |\n| BootStrap                   |\n+-----------------------------+\n            ↓\n+-----------------------------+\n|       Presentation Layer    |\n|-----------------------------|\n| POST requests               |\n| GET requests                |\n+-----------------------------+\n            ↓\n+-----------------------------+\n|        Business Layer       |\n|-----------------------------|\n| User Functions:             |\n|  - Login/Registration       |\n|  - Browse NBA Fan Community |",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user authentication system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a secure login/registration system, including input validation, proper password hashing, session management, and CSRF protection. Score 0 if authentication is not implemented, 5 if basic login/registration exists but lacks security features, and 10 if it includes comprehensive security measures like rate limiting and multi-factor authentication options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the NBA Fan Community browsing functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the community browsing system includes content filtering, pagination, search functionality, and proper data loading states. Deduct 3 points if pagination is missing, 3 points if search functionality is absent, and 2 points if there are no loading states. A complete implementation should display NBA-related content in an organized manner with proper user interaction. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the frontend-backend communication properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of HTTP requests (GET/POST) between the presentation layer and business layer, including proper error handling, status code interpretation, and response processing. Check for API versioning, consistent response formats, and proper content-type headers. Deduct 5 points if error handling is missing, and 3 points if requests lack proper headers or payload formatting. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the system architecture properly implemented according to the specified layers?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code properly follows the specified four-layer architecture (Access Layer, Frontend UI, Presentation Layer, Business Layer) with clear separation of concerns. Check that each layer only communicates with adjacent layers and maintains proper encapsulation. Deduct 3 points for each instance of layer violation (e.g., Access Layer directly communicating with Business Layer). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, invalid inputs, authentication 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 NBA score updates 2. Personalized content recommendations 3. Interactive fan polls/surveys). 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 profile systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to NBA fan community (e.g., general sports news not specific to NBA) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or unnecessary API calls). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components, services, and API calls), code organization, and responsive design implementation. 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 responsive design principles aren't followed for different screen sizes. 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 scrolling, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/nextjs-vite-ssr-typescript-micro-frontend-project.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1012,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the code you generate is executable and demonstrable. Build a complete project using Next.js/Vite that includes SSR+TypeScript+micro-frontend architecture.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Next.js/Vite project structure properly implemented with SSR support?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly configures Next.js or Vite with SSR capabilities. Check for proper configuration files (next.config.js or vite.config.ts), server-side entry points, and hydration mechanisms. Score 0 if SSR is not implemented, 5 if basic SSR is configured but with hydration issues, and 10 if full SSR implementation with proper data fetching methods (getServerSideProps/getStaticProps for Next.js or equivalent patterns in Vite) is present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is TypeScript properly integrated throughout the project?",
-      "description": "Evaluate TypeScript configuration quality including tsconfig.json settings, strict mode usage, and proper type definitions. Check for type safety in component props, API responses, state management, and micro-frontend interfaces. Deduct 3 points for missing or incomplete type definitions, 3 points for any 'any' type usage without justification, and 4 points if TypeScript is only superficially implemented without leveraging its benefits for code safety. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the micro-frontend architecture correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code properly implements micro-frontend patterns with clear module federation, independent deployability, and proper runtime integration. Check for container/host application configuration, remote/child applications structure, and shared dependency management. Deduct 5 points if micro-frontends cannot be developed independently, 3 points for poor boundary definition between micro-frontends, and 5 points if shared state management or styling is inconsistent. Give 10 points for a complete implementation with proper isolation and integration strategies.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are communication patterns between micro-frontends robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of communication mechanisms between micro-frontends. Look for event-based communication systems, shared API interfaces, proper state propagation, and error handling between boundaries. Score 0 if no communication mechanism exists, 5 if basic communication exists but lacks error handling or type safety, and 10 if comprehensive, type-safe communication with fallback mechanisms is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as SSR/CSR mismatch, module loading failures, network interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error boundaries or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should implement error boundaries at micro-frontend boundaries, handle hydration errors, and manage asynchronous loading states. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points if only basic error handling exists, and 0 points if exceptions are unmanaged.",
-      "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. Progressive bundle loading with prioritization 2. Microfrontend-aware dev tools or visualization 3. Automatic state persistence across microfrontends). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate implementations across micro-frontends that could be shared 2. Unused libraries or dependencies increasing bundle size 3. Over-engineered solutions where simpler approaches would suffice. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core architecture is compromised by redundant implementation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review build pipeline configuration, code splitting strategies, modular design, and testing frameworks integration. Check for CI/CD setup, proper webpack/rollup/turbopack configurations for microfrontends, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points for missing build optimizations, 3 points for inadequate testing setup, and 2 points for poor documentation of the architecture. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design system is consistent across micro-frontends: 1) Unified component library usage 2) Consistent theming implementation (CSS variables or styled-system) 3) Responsive design patterns applied uniformly. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistency between micro-frontends, 5 points for conflicting design patterns, and 5 points for accessibility issues (WCAG compliance failures). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the performance optimization comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the performance considerations address micro-frontend specific challenges: 1) Bundle size optimization and code splitting 2) Shared runtime dependencies management 3) Loading sequence optimization and critical path rendering. Deduct 3 points for each microfrontend exceeding 200KB initial load, 5 points for render-blocking resources, and 5 points if Core Web Vitals metrics (LCP, FID, CLS) aren't explicitly addressed in the implementation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/novel-character-details-panel.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 731,
-  "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 display. Create a character information panel for a novel, including details such as race, age, potential, and other information (Human female who has awakened the Yan-Huang bloodline).",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the character information panel structure logically organized?",
-      "description": "Review whether the HTML structure creates a clear visual hierarchy with proper semantic tags (section, article, header). Check if information is categorized logically (basic info, attributes, abilities, background). Score 0 if the structure is chaotic, 5 if basic organization exists but lacks semantic clarity, and 10 if information is perfectly structured with semantic HTML and logical grouping.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the character's Yan-Huang bloodline feature prominently displayed and visually distinguished?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the special bloodline feature is highlighted through visual cues (unique styling, icons, color coding) rather than just mentioned in text. The bloodline should be immediately recognizable as the character's defining trait. Deduct 5 points if the bloodline is only mentioned textually without visual emphasis, and 3 points if the visual treatment isn't distinctive enough from other attributes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the panel include interactive elements to explore character details?",
-      "description": "Check for interactive elements like expandable sections, tooltips for abilities, tabbed interfaces for different information categories, or hover effects that reveal additional lore. Score 0 if no interactivity exists, 5 if basic interactions (like simple toggles) are implemented, and 10 if rich, intuitive interactions enhance the exploration of character information.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a visual representation of the character's attributes and potential?",
-      "description": "Assess whether attributes (strength, intelligence, etc.) and potential are presented with visual charts (radar charts, progress bars, star ratings) rather than just numbers. The visualization should make attribute comparisons intuitive. Deduct 5 points if only text values are used, and 3 points if visualizations exist but are hard to interpret. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases (missing data fields, long text content, browser compatibility issues) and provides fallbacks or graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should validate inputs and handle display issues across devices. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic safeguards, and 0 points if the panel breaks easily.",
-      "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. Dynamic character portraits that change with stat modifications 2. Timeline visualization of character development 3. Animated bloodline effects). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant display of the same information 2. Unnecessary animations that don't convey meaning 3. Feature bloat unrelated to character information display. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core information readability is compromised by excessive elements.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of data and presentation logic), code reusability (component-based approach), and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 5 points if styling and logic are tightly coupled without separation; deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or documentation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows fantasy/novel UI conventions while maintaining professional standards: 1) Thematic color palette appropriate for the fantasy setting 2) Typography hierarchy with decorative elements for headers but readable body text 3) Balanced white space that creates an elegant layout. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent styling, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for misaligned elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether transitions and animations enhance the storytelling: 1) Subtle hover effects that highlight important information 2) Smooth transitions between different information sections 3) Loading states for any dynamic content. Deduct 5 points for jarring or abrupt transitions, 3 points for animations that feel disconnected from the fantasy theme, and 5 points for interactions that interrupt the narrative flow. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/office-document-annotation-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 483,
-  "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. Develop an office document annotation tool. Users can upload office documents (such as DOCX format) through the frontend, and add annotations to the document (annotator, annotation content, annotation time). Other users can view the annotation information, and the tool supports replying to and modifying annotations.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the document uploading and rendering functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete file upload system with proper validation for document formats (DOCX, etc.), secure file handling, and accurate rendering of the document content in the browser. Check if it handles different document structures properly and maintains formatting. Score 0 if document upload/rendering is not implemented, 5 if basic uploading works but rendering has issues, 10 if the system fully supports uploading and displaying documents with preserved formatting.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the annotation system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete annotation system that allows users to select portions of text/content and add annotations (including annotator info, content, and timestamp). Check if annotations are visually distinguishable and properly positioned relative to the document content. Deduct 5 points if annotation positioning is inaccurate, 3 points if timestamp tracking is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the annotation interaction functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code implements functionality for viewing, replying to, and modifying annotations. Check if the system tracks edit history for annotations and if permission controls are in place (who can edit which annotations). Deduct 4 points if reply threading is missing, 3 points if annotation editing lacks version control, and 3 points if permission management is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the document/annotation persistence mechanism robust?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements proper storage and retrieval of both documents and annotations. Check if annotations are stored separately from documents but linked appropriately, and if the system handles concurrent edits properly. Deduct 4 points if annotations aren't properly persisted across sessions, 3 points if there's no conflict resolution for concurrent edits, and 3 points if the storage mechanism doesn't scale well. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common error scenarios (invalid document formats, large files, concurrent editing conflicts, etc.) and provides friendly error messages or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle 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 annotation with presence indicators 2. AI-assisted annotation categorization 3. Document comparison with annotation highlighting 4. Analytics dashboard for annotation activities). 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 annotation systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to document annotation (e.g., a built-in chat system not tied to annotations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when viewing annotations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating document handling/annotation logic/view/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 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) Annotation creation feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance when switching between annotations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during document scrolling, and 5 points for hard-to-find annotation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-approval-workflow-management-system-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1153,
-  "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 and functional. Create an online approval workflow management system for an office platform using front-end technologies, with support for custom form templates. Build the interactive interface using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. On the approval workflow page, users should be able to design form templates themselves to meet diverse approval requirements. Display approval process progress in real-time, enabling monitoring and management of each approval stage. When new approval data is generated, the system status should update in real-time, dynamically changing the color or style of approval nodes to visually reflect the progress of the approval process.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the custom form template builder fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements a complete form template builder that allows users to drag-and-drop form elements, customize field types (text, numbers, dates, dropdowns, etc.), set validations, and save templates. Score 0 if the builder is not implemented, 5 if only basic field addition is possible, and 10 if the full WYSIWYG editor with preview functionality is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the workflow designer component functional?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides a visual workflow designer that allows users to define approval steps, assign approvers/roles, create conditional branches, and set up parallel/sequential approvals. Check if it includes features like timeout settings and escalation rules. Deduct 3 points if the workflow lacks conditional logic, 4 points if it doesn't support parallel approvals, and 3 points if there's no way to visualize the complete workflow. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the real-time approval progress visualization implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements visual representation of approval workflows with clear node statuses (pending, approved, rejected, in progress) using appropriate color coding and iconography. Check if the visualization updates in real-time without page refresh. Deduct 5 points if the visualization is static (requires refresh), and 5 points if status changes aren't visually distinct. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the data synchronization mechanism robust?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system uses WebSockets, Server-Sent Events, or long polling to achieve real-time updates. Check for optimistic UI updates with server validation, conflict resolution mechanisms, and offline support with data reconciliation. Deduct 4 points if updates require manual refresh, 3 points if there's no conflict resolution, and 3 points if there's no offline functionality. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases (invalid form submissions, network failures, concurrent edits, etc.) and provides appropriate error handling and user feedback. Check for form validation, data persistence during browser crashes, and session handling. Deduct 3 points for missing input validation, 4 points for poor error handling, and 3 points for lack of data recovery mechanisms. Full score is 10 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-suggested approval paths based on form content 2. Mobile-responsive design with push notifications 3. Analytics dashboard for approval metrics 4. Document attachment and version control). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple notification systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to approval workflows (e.g., a built-in chat system) 3. Excessive animations or effects that impact performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular architecture (separation of form builder, workflow engine, and UI components), code reusability, and maintainability. Check for proper state management patterns, component-based design, and clean interfaces between modules. Deduct 3 points for global state pollution, 4 points if there's significant code duplication, and 3 points if there's tight coupling between unrelated components. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme that differentiates workflow states clearly 2) Intuitive layout with proper hierarchical information display 3) Responsive design that works across devices. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent styling, 3 points for poor information hierarchy, and 4 points for non-responsive layouts that break on different screen sizes. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions feel natural and responsive: 1) Form elements respond immediately to user input 2) Workflow node transitions are animated smoothly (200-400ms) 3) Status changes provide visual feedback 4) Drag-and-drop operations have appropriate physics. Deduct 2.5 points for each interaction issue: laggy form inputs, abrupt state changes, missing hover states, or confusing action feedback. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-examination-system-with-auto-grading.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 553,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please implement an online examination system where administrators can create exams, add question banks (multiple choice, true/false, fill-in-the-blank), set exam times and scoring rules; teachers can schedule exams for specific classes, view exam results and statistical analysis; students can take exams within the specified time, with the system automatically timing, submitting when time expires, and displaying scores and error analysis after the exam ends. The system should also support automatic grading and score export functionality.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the exam creation and question bank management fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether administrators can create exams with various question types (multiple choice, true/false, fill-in-the-blank), set up customizable question banks, define exam durations, and establish scoring rules. Score 0 if the admin interface is missing, 5 if only basic question creation is implemented without proper validation, and 10 if the complete exam management system includes question versioning, categorization by difficulty, and dynamic scoring rules.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the teacher management functions properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of teacher-specific features including exam scheduling for specific classes, viewing detailed exam results, and accessing comprehensive statistical analysis tools. Check if data visualization for performance metrics is included. Deduct 3 points if class management is incomplete, 4 points if statistical analysis lacks depth (no distribution charts or performance trends), and 5 points if there's no batch operation capability for managing multiple exams/classes. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the student exam-taking experience complete and reliable?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the student interface allows seamless exam participation with proper timing mechanisms, auto-save functionality, and prevention of unauthorized navigation/cheating. Check if the system enforces automatic submission when time expires and provides comprehensive score display with detailed error analysis. Deduct 5 points if anti-cheating measures are absent, 3 points if auto-save isn't implemented, and 5 points if error analysis is superficial. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the automatic grading system accurate and comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Verify if the system can automatically grade different question types accurately, handle partial credits for complex questions, and efficiently export scores in various formats (CSV, Excel, PDF). Test if the grading algorithm correctly processes edge cases like partially correct answers. Deduct 5 points if only basic scoring is implemented without handling edge cases, 3 points if export functionality is limited, and 5 points if there's no provision for manual overrides by teachers. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common abnormal situations (e.g., network interruptions during exams, concurrent access issues, browser crashes, invalid inputs) and provides appropriate recovery mechanisms. Test edge cases like exam submission in the last second or multiple login attempts. Deduct 3 points for each unhandled critical issue. Code with strong robustness that gracefully handles these situations earns 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered question generation 2. Plagiarism detection algorithms 3. Adaptive difficulty based on student performance 4. Integrated video proctoring). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to create the same type of question) 2. Function modules unrelated to an examination system (e.g., social networking features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during crucial exam-taking). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of core exam logic, user interfaces, authentication systems), test coverage for critical paths (especially exam submission and grading), and database schema optimization. Deduct 3 points if global state management is messy, 3 points if no data validation exists between layers, 2 points if the code duplication rate exceeds 20%, and 2 points if there's no error logging system. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows education software design principles: 1) Clear visual hierarchy distinguishing between admin, teacher, and student views 2) Consistent color schemes with appropriate contrast for extended reading 3) Intuitive navigation especially for time-sensitive exam interfaces 4) Responsive design for various device sizes. Deduct 2.5 points for each major design inconsistency, 5 points for accessibility issues (small text, poor contrast), and 3 points for cluttered exam interfaces. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the system interactions prioritize exam integrity: 1) Question transitions load under 200ms 2) Auto-save indicators provide clear feedback 3) Time remaining notifications are prominent without being distracting 4) Submission process confirms actions to prevent accidental data loss. Deduct 3 points for laggy question navigation, 3 points for unclear submission status, 2 points for distracting animations during exams, and 2 points for confusing error messages. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-folder-file-management-tool-tree-view.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 559,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable when possible. Create an online folder and file management tool where users can create folders, upload files, rename, move, and delete files, with support for a tree-view interface to display the file structure.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file and folder management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements core file operations including create folder, upload files, rename, move, and delete functionality. Check if the implementation includes proper file validation (size limits, type restrictions), progress tracking for uploads, and batch operations support. Score 0 if core CRUD operations are missing, 5 if only basic create/delete is implemented, and 10 if all file management operations are fully functional with proper validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the tree-view interface properly implemented and interactive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the tree structure visualization includes expandable/collapsible nodes, drag-and-drop functionality for moving files, context menus for operations, and proper visual hierarchy. Check if the tree updates dynamically when operations are performed and maintains state consistency. Deduct 5 points if drag-and-drop is missing, 3 points if tree state doesn't sync with operations, and 3 points if visual hierarchy is unclear. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the backend storage and API architecture properly designed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the backend implements RESTful APIs for file operations, proper file storage mechanism (local/cloud), database schema for file metadata, and security measures for file access. Evaluate if the API handles concurrent operations, file versioning, and maintains data integrity. Deduct 5 points if API endpoints are incomplete, 3 points if no security validation exists, and 5 points if concurrent operation conflicts are not handled. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is real-time synchronization and state management implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system implements real-time updates across multiple sessions, proper state management for file operations, and conflict resolution for simultaneous edits. Check if WebSocket or similar technology is used for live updates and if the system maintains consistency between frontend display and backend state. Deduct 5 points if no real-time sync exists, 3 points if state conflicts occur, and 5 points if multiple user operations cause data corruption. 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, 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. File preview functionality with thumbnails 2. Advanced search and filtering capabilities 3. File sharing with permission management 4. Breadcrumb navigation with quick access 5. Keyboard shortcuts for power users). 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 mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file management (e.g., built-in text editor, media player) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., heavy animations during file operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core file management 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 operations/UI components/API layers), proper error handling, code organization, and scalability considerations. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or component architecture is poorly structured; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper separation of concerns exists. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the file manager design follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent iconography and visual language 2) Proper spacing and grid system (8px multiples) 3) Clear file type differentiation through icons/colors 4) Professional typography hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each unclear visual element, 5 points for inconsistent design patterns, and 5 points for poor file/folder distinction. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the file operations provide immediate feedback: 1) File upload progress indicators and status feedback 2) Smooth tree expansion/collapse animations (200-400ms) 3) Drag-and-drop visual feedback and drop zones 4) Loading states for file operations 5) Hover effects and selection states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without visual feedback, 3 points for laggy interactions during file operations, and 5 points if drag-and-drop lacks proper visual cues. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}