@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/wechat-mini-program-warehouse-inventory-financial-management.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1724,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Help me create a WeChat Mini Program for warehouse inventory management. The main functions include: initial data setup, creating orders for incoming and outgoing inventory, inventory registration, and inventory queries. Sorry, also need financial management.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic warehouse inventory management system implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code correctly implements the core Mini Program structure with App.json, App.wxss, and essential pages. Check whether the inventory database schema properly includes essential fields like product ID, name, quantity, location, unit price, and timestamps. Review if the system handles multiple warehouses and inventory categorization. Score 0 if core structures are missing, 5 if basic inventory tracking is implemented, and 10 if complete warehouse management functionality is included with proper data relationships.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the incoming and outgoing inventory order operations fully functional?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements complete order workflows for both receiving and shipping inventory. Verify that the system captures essential order details (order number, date, supplier/customer, products with quantities, prices) and properly updates inventory quantities. Validate that the system handles partial orders, returns, and maintains order history. Deduct 5 points if transaction logs are not implemented, and 3 points if order verification workflows are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the inventory registration and query system effective?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code provides proper inventory registration functionality with barcode/QR code scanning capabilities, batch operations, and validation checks. Check if the query system offers flexible search by multiple parameters (product name, code, category, warehouse location) with sorting and filtering options. Verify that inventory alerts for low stock and expiration dates are implemented. Deduct 5 points if mobile-optimized scanning is missing, and 3 points if advanced search capabilities are limited. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the financial management module properly integrated with inventory operations?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements financial tracking that links directly to inventory transactions, including cost calculations (FIFO/LIFO/average), profit margins, invoice generation, and payment tracking. Check if the system generates financial reports (profit/loss, inventory valuation) with visualization components. Deduct 5 points if cost basis tracking is inconsistent, and 3 points if financial reporting lacks visualization. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases in Mini Program environments (such as offline usage, network instability, concurrent modifications, etc.) and provides appropriate error handling and data validation. Check for input sanitization, transaction rollbacks on failure, and data consistency mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered inventory prediction 2. Voice command inventory operations 3. Augmented reality for warehouse navigation 4. Automated supplier reordering). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to register inventory) 2. Function modules unrelated to warehouse management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance on low-end devices common for warehouse staff. 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 business logic/UI/API layers), use of WeChat Mini Program best practices (proper use of components, API calls), error logging, and comprehensive comments. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if unit tests are missing. 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 WeChat Mini Program design guidelines: 1) Consistent with WeChat visual language 2) Proper use of WeChat components 3) Responsive layout that works on various screen sizes 4) Appropriate use of white space and typography. Deduct 3 points for each non-standard component implementation, 5 points for inconsistent navigation patterns, and 5 points for poor readability of critical inventory data. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and optimized for warehouse scenarios?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the app is optimized for real warehouse usage: 1) Fast barcode scanning response (≤ 500ms) 2) Single-handed operation possible for key functions 3) Minimal steps for frequent tasks 4) Works in poor connectivity conditions. Deduct 5 points if scanning operations take too many steps, 3 points for non-intuitive inventory adjustment gestures, and 5 points if offline capability is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/winform-treeview-department-structure.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 316,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that the code you generate is executable and displayable. Create a department structure using a WinForm TreeView for me.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the TreeView implementation complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly initializes a TreeView control, adds nodes representing department hierarchy, and implements basic functionality. Check if the nodes are properly structured (parent-child relationships), named, and if icons are used to distinguish different node types. Score 0 if TreeView is not implemented, 5 if basic implementation exists, 10 if fully featured with proper structure.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is department data management properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes proper data structures for departments (classes/objects), methods for adding/removing/editing departments, and maintains the hierarchical relationships correctly. Deduct 5 points if only hard-coded department structure exists, 3 points if modification operations are incomplete. Full score requires a complete data model with CRUD operations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are event handlers for TreeView interactions implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code handles user interactions such as node expansion/collapse, selection change, right-click context menus, and drag-and-drop operations if needed. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction handler. The implementation should include proper event wiring and handlers that perform appropriate actions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is node manipulation functionality included?",
-      "description": "Assess whether users can add new departments, delete existing ones, rename departments, and move departments (restructuring). Check for keyboard shortcuts support, confirmation dialogs for destructive actions, and proper UI feedback. Give 10 points for complete implementation, 5 for partial functionality, 0 if completely missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty department names, duplicate nodes, invalid operations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Search functionality for departments 2. Export/import of department structure 3. Visual indicators of department size/employee count). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to add departments) 2. Function modules unrelated to department management (e.g., built-in calculators) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI logic from business logic), proper naming conventions, commenting, error handling, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 5 points if the code is not properly organized into methods/classes; deduct 5 points if naming conventions are inconsistent or unclear. 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 Windows Forms design principles: 1) Consistent control spacing and alignment 2) Proper form sizing and resizing behavior 3) Professional use of fonts, colors and icons. Deduct 3 points for each misaligned element, 5 points for non-resizable interface with truncated content, and 5 points for unclear visual hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the user interaction smooth and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interaction design conforms to Windows application standards: 1) Standard keyboard shortcuts (Del for delete, F2 for rename, etc.) 2) Intuitive drag-and-drop behavior 3) Appropriate visual feedback for actions. Deduct 5 points for missing standard shortcuts, 3 points for unintuitive interaction patterns, and 5 points for lack of visual feedback during operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/yinmeng-self-service-printing-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 753,
-  "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. Write a program similar to Yinmeng self-service printing.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core printing system functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements the essential features of a self-service printing system, including file upload/selection, printer selection, print configuration (copies, color/B&W, page range, etc.), and print job submission. Award 10 points for complete implementation with all core features, 5 points if basic printing is possible but missing key configurations, and 0 points if the printing workflow is incomplete or non-functional.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file management and preview system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes file upload capabilities supporting multiple formats (PDF, DOC, images), secure file storage, and proper preview functionality (document thumbnails or rendering). Verify if the preview accurately represents how the document will print. Deduct 3 points if multiple file formats aren't supported, 4 points for missing preview functionality, and 5 points if file management is insecure. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is a payment/balance system implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system includes a complete user balance/payment workflow with price calculation based on parameters (page count, color vs. B&W), payment options, and proper receipt generation. Check if the system includes proper transaction logs and balance management. Award 10 points for a complete system with all features, 5 points if basic payment exists but lacks some elements, and 0 points if payment functionality is absent.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a comprehensive user account and authentication system?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code implements user registration, login, session management, account dashboard (printing history, saved documents, etc.), and proper security measures (password hashing, input validation). Award 10 points for a complete system with secure practices, 5 points if basic authentication exists with security gaps, and 0 points if authentication is missing or fundamentally flawed.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (invalid file formats, payment failures, network interruptions, printer errors) 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. OCR for text extraction and editing 2. Document AI for automatic formatting improvement 3. Smart queue management with estimated wait times). 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 printing (e.g., a built-in game while waiting) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during critical operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating business logic/UI/data 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 sliding, 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": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/backup-strategy-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 560,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the code executable whenever possible. Please write code to implement a backup strategy management system where IT administrators can create and manage different backup policies, and users can automatically upload backups of specified folders according to these policies. The system should provide status monitoring and logging functions for backup tasks, and support data recovery. Administrators should be able to assign backup policies to different users and generate backup usage reports.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the backup policy management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete policy management system where administrators can create, edit, delete, and view backup policies with parameters like frequency, retention period, and storage targets. Check if policies can be assigned to specific users or groups. Score 0 if the policy management functionality is missing, 5 if basic CRUD operations are implemented but lack advanced features, and 10 if the system includes comprehensive policy management with validation and conflict detection.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the automated backup mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the automated backup functionality. Check if the code includes scheduling mechanisms (cron jobs, task schedulers), file monitoring for changes, incremental/differential backup options, and compression algorithms. Verify that backups can be triggered automatically according to defined policies. Deduct 3 points if scheduling is manual only, 3 points if only full backups are supported, and 3 points if there's no compression or encryption. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the monitoring and logging system comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements detailed logging and monitoring for backup operations, including success/failure status, progress tracking, error handling, and notification mechanisms. Check for real-time monitoring dashboards, alert configurations, and audit trails. Deduct 3 points if there's no real-time status updates, 3 points if error notifications are missing, and 3 points if historical logs cannot be queried or filtered. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the data recovery functionality effective?",
-      "description": "Examine the data recovery implementation, including point-in-time recovery options, file-level and system-level restore capabilities, and restoration testing mechanisms. Check if the recovery process handles corrupted backups and provides clear progress indicators. Deduct 3 points if only full restores are supported (no granular recovery), 3 points if versioning is limited/missing, and 3 points if there's no verification of restored data. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, disk full events, permission issues, corrupted files, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if background processes can resume interrupted backups. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered backup optimization suggestions 2. Cloud storage integration with automatic provider selection 3. Self-healing backup verification). 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 backup engines running in parallel) 2. Function modules unrelated to backup management (e.g., a built-in email client) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the dashboard). 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 policy management/backup execution/reporting layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for appropriate design patterns, error handling, and dependency management. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; 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). Check if dashboard visualizations are clear and informative. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic dashboard 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) Progress indicators for long-running operations 3) Clear visual guidance for critical actions like recovery processes. Assess responsiveness during large backup operations. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for freezing UIs during backup processes, and 5 points for confusing navigation between system components. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/device-lifecycle-management-system-fine-chemical.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 210,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the generated code is executable and displayable. You are a master of device management. Can you help me build a device lifecycle management system for fine chemical enterprises, aimed at equipment management personnel, the three engineers (mechanical, electrical, and instrument engineers), and equipment users? It's for daily equipment work management, for designated personnel use. Please help me design it with a navy blue and white color scheme as the main color palette. Output in HTML format.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the device lifecycle management core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements comprehensive device lifecycle stages through HTML/JavaScript, including device registration, maintenance scheduling, status monitoring, retirement planning, and asset tracking. Check if it covers all phases from procurement to disposal with proper state transitions. Score 0 if core lifecycle logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic CRUD operations are present, and 10 if complete lifecycle management with automated workflows is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the multi-role user management system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system includes role-based access control for equipment management personnel, mechanical/electrical/instrument engineers, and equipment users. Check for proper permission segregation, role-specific dashboards, and secure authentication mechanisms. Verify that each role has appropriate access levels and functionality tailored to their responsibilities. Deduct 5 points if role separation is unclear, 3 points if permission validation is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the equipment work management and scheduling system comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements daily work management features including maintenance schedules, work order creation/assignment, equipment downtime tracking, and performance analytics. Evaluate if preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, and emergency response workflows are properly designed. Deduct 5 points if scheduling algorithms are basic, 3 points if notification systems are missing. Full score requires advanced scheduling with conflict resolution.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the fine chemical industry compliance and safety framework integrated?",
-      "description": "Review whether the system addresses fine chemical industry-specific requirements such as hazardous equipment classification, safety protocol enforcement, regulatory compliance tracking, and incident reporting mechanisms. Check for integration of safety checklists, permit-to-work systems, and environmental monitoring. Deduct 5 points if industry-specific features are generic, 3 points if safety protocols are not enforced. 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 device data input, network interruption, concurrent user operations, data corruption, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases including database failures, API timeouts, and user permission changes. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average robustness, and 0 points if no exception handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance enterprise workflow?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes valuable features that improve operational efficiency (e.g., 1. Predictive maintenance using equipment sensor data 2. Mobile-responsive interface for field technicians 3. Integration with ERP/CMMS systems 4. AI-powered equipment failure prediction 5. QR code-based equipment identification). Add 2-3 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 equipment search mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to device management (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Excessive animations that impact enterprise software performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core device management functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have enterprise-grade engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separating data layer/business logic/presentation layers), security implementation, database design normalization, and scalability considerations. Deduct 5 points if sensitive data is not properly secured or SQL injection vulnerabilities exist; deduct 5 points if the code structure doesn't support enterprise scalability; deduct 5 points if no data backup/recovery mechanisms are implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the navy blue and white interface design meet professional enterprise standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the navy blue and white color scheme is professionally implemented following enterprise design principles: 1) Proper navy blue variants used consistently (#1e3a5f, #2c5282, etc.) 2) High contrast ratios for accessibility (minimum 4.5:1) 3) Professional typography with clear hierarchy 4) Clean white space utilization. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent color usage, 5 points for poor contrast affecting readability, and 5 points for unprofessional appearance unsuitable for industrial environments.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the enterprise user experience optimized for daily operations?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interface is optimized for daily enterprise use: 1) Quick access to frequently used functions 2) Efficient data entry forms with validation 3) Clear navigation suitable for different user roles 4) Responsive design for various devices used in industrial settings. Deduct 5 points for each workflow that requires excessive clicks, 3 points for forms lacking proper validation, and 5 points for navigation that doesn't clearly separate role-based functions. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/equipment-borrowing-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 647,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Equipment Borrowing Management System\n\nYou are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration.\n\nDevelop an electronic device borrowing management system for company employees to borrow shared equipment such as laptops, projectors, cameras, etc. The system requires user login functionality where regular employees can view available equipment lists, submit borrowing requests (specifying time period and purpose), and return equipment. Administrators (username: admin, password: 123456) can approve borrowing requests, add or remove equipment, view borrowing history, and mark equipment status (available, borrowed, under maintenance). The system should automatically send reminders about equipment return dates and track usage rates and borrowing frequency for each type of equipment.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user authentication system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements secure user authentication with role-based access control (regular employees vs. administrators). Check if login validation includes input sanitation, password hashing, and session management. Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic login exists without security features, and 10 if it includes proper authentication with role separation and security measures.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the equipment management functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of equipment management features, including listing, adding, removing, and updating equipment status (available, borrowed, under maintenance). Check if each equipment item has proper attributes (ID, name, type, status, description, etc.). Deduct 3 points if equipment categorization is missing, 5 points if equipment status tracking is incomplete, and 3 points if equipment details are insufficient. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the borrowing request system fully functional?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the code implements a complete borrowing workflow including request submission (with time period and purpose), approval process, and return handling. Check if the system validates borrowing dates, prevents conflicts, and handles edge cases like early returns or extensions. Score 0 if the core borrowing process is incomplete, 5 if basic functionality exists without validation, and 10 if the complete workflow with all validations is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the notification and reminder system implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system includes automated reminders for return dates. Check if notifications are properly scheduled and delivered through appropriate channels (in-app, email, etc.). Verify if the system handles overdue items with escalation procedures. Deduct 5 points if reminders are missing, 3 points if notification delivery is unreliable, and 3 points if overdue handling is absent. 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 concurrent borrowing requests for the same equipment, network issues during submission, user operation errors, 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. Equipment usage analytics/visualizations 2. QR code generation for quick equipment check-in/check-out 3. Integration with calendar for scheduling). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to update equipment status) 2. Function modules unrelated to equipment management (e.g., a complex chat system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the interface). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/service/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 sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/esp32-car-control-webpage-ultrasonic-line-tracking.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1321,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please help me write code for a webpage that controls an ESP32 car with ultrasonic sensors and line tracking sensors. The car uses a DRV8833 motor driver chip.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the ESP32 web control interface fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements a responsive web interface with directional controls (forward, backward, left, right), speed adjustment, and emergency stop functionality. Check if WebSocket/HTTP communication is correctly established for real-time control. Score 0 if basic controls are missing, 5 if only basic movement controls are implemented, and 10 if all controls including speed adjustment and emergency stop are properly implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the ultrasonic sensor data visualization properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code effectively displays real-time ultrasonic sensor data through visual indicators (gauges, numerical displays, or radar-like visualizations). Check if distance thresholds for obstacle detection are properly configured and if warning indicators are shown when obstacles are detected. Deduct 3 points if visualization is missing, 3 points if data is not updated in real-time, and 2 points if warning indicators are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the line tracking sensor feedback and control system implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the webpage displays the status of line tracking sensors and provides an automatic line-following mode option. Verify if the interface shows the current tracking status and allows toggling between manual and line-following modes. Deduct 5 points if sensor feedback visualization is missing, and 5 points if the automatic line-following control feature is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the DRV8833 motor driver control logic correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly translates web interface commands to appropriate PWM signal instructions for the DRV8833 motor driver chip. Check for proper mapping of directional controls to motor outputs, speed control implementation, and motor protection features (overcurrent detection). Deduct 5 points if PWM control is improperly implemented, 3 points if motor protection features are missing, and 2 points if speed control is inaccurate. 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 connection loss, sensor failure, invalid input values, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should implement timeout handling, reconnection mechanisms, and sensor error detection. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average robustness, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
-      "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 path mapping/tracking visualization 2. Camera integration for remote viewing 3. Customizable autonomous navigation patterns 4. Battery level monitoring and alerts). 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 control systems overlapping) 2. Function modules unrelated to car control (e.g., unnecessary animations or features) 3. Heavy frontend effects that could impact performance on mobile devices or cause latency in control. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core control functions are compromised by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/control logic/communication layers), error logging, and responsive design implementation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if proper design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the interface is not responsive across different devices. 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 control layout with clear visual hierarchy (primary controls prominently displayed). Deduct 3 points for each poorly positioned control element, 5 points for an unclear or visually jarring interface, and 5 points for controls that are difficult to use on touch devices. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the control interface provides immediate feedback and responsiveness: 1) Command execution delay ≤ 100ms 2) Visual feedback for all user actions 3) Real-time sensor data updates at least every 200ms. Deduct 5 points for noticeable control latency, 3 points for missing visual feedback on controls, and 5 points for sensor data that updates too slowly or inconsistently. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/hardware-inventory-warning-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 607,
-  "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. Develop a hardware inventory warning system that automatically sends alerts when inventory quantities fall below a set threshold; users can view the alert list and handle alerts (such as restocking).",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the inventory monitoring and threshold detection system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements real-time inventory quantity tracking, automatic threshold comparison logic, and multi-level warning mechanisms (critical/warning/info levels). Check if the system supports configurable thresholds for different item categories and includes bulk threshold management. Score 0 if core monitoring logic is missing, 5 if only basic threshold detection is implemented, and 10 if advanced features like predictive analytics and seasonal threshold adjustments are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the alert notification system comprehensively implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the notification system supports multiple channels (email, SMS, in-app notifications, webhook integrations) with proper message queuing and retry mechanisms. Check for alert escalation logic, notification batching to prevent spam, and customizable notification templates. Deduct 5 points if delivery confirmation is missing, 3 points if no rate limiting is implemented. Full score requires multi-channel failover and delivery tracking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the alert management and handling workflow properly designed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system provides comprehensive alert lifecycle management including alert acknowledgment, assignment to responsible personnel, status tracking (pending/in-progress/resolved), and audit trails. Evaluate if bulk alert operations, filtering/sorting capabilities, and automated alert resolution are implemented. Deduct 5 points if no workflow automation exists, 3 points if alert history is not maintained. Full score requires advanced workflow customization and SLA tracking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the inventory data management and restocking integration complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system includes robust inventory data CRUD operations, supplier integration for automated reordering, purchase order generation, and inventory forecasting capabilities. Check for data validation, concurrent update handling, and integration with external inventory systems via APIs. Deduct 5 points if no automated restocking workflow exists, 3 points if data consistency mechanisms are missing. Full score requires comprehensive supply chain integration and predictive restocking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust and error-resilient?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles edge cases such as negative inventory values, concurrent threshold updates, network failures during alert sending, and database connection issues. Check for proper exception handling, graceful degradation, circuit breaker patterns, and comprehensive logging. Code with strong robustness should include retry mechanisms, fallback strategies, and data recovery procedures, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exception handling exists, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance operational efficiency?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes advanced features that improve user experience and operational efficiency (e.g., 1. AI-powered demand forecasting 2. Mobile-responsive dashboard with offline capability 3. Integration with barcode/RFID scanning 4. Automated vendor comparison and procurement suggestions 5. Real-time inventory analytics and reporting). Add 2-3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant or unnecessary features?",
-      "description": "Strictly examine three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate alert mechanisms or notification logic 2. Features unrelated to inventory management (e.g., built-in chat system, games) 3. Over-engineered UI components that don't add functional value (e.g., excessive animations, complex charts for simple data). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core inventory functions are compromised by unnecessary complexity.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code demonstrate professional engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review architectural patterns (separation of concerns, service layers, repository patterns), test coverage for critical paths, database optimization, and deployment automation. Deduct 5 points if tight coupling between components is found; deduct 5 points if no unit tests exist for core inventory logic; deduct 5 points if database queries are not optimized or lack proper indexing. Full score requires clean architecture, comprehensive testing, and production-ready deployment configuration.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the user interface meet professional dashboard design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the dashboard design follows enterprise application principles: 1) Consistent color scheme with proper contrast ratios for accessibility 2) Logical information hierarchy with clear visual grouping 3) Professional typography with appropriate font sizes (≥14px for body text) 4) Effective use of data visualization for inventory trends. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for poor color choices affecting readability, and 5 points for inconsistent styling across pages.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the user interaction smooth and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interface provides optimal user experience: 1) Immediate feedback for all user actions (≤100ms) 2) Smooth transitions between different views (300-500ms) 3) Clear visual indicators for alert priorities and system status 4) Intuitive navigation and search functionality. Deduct 5 points for any action lacking visual feedback, 3 points for confusing navigation flow, and 5 points if critical functions like alert acknowledgment are hard to locate or execute.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}