@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/system-server-monitoring-web-interface.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1401,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure the generated code is executable. Create a one-click solution for checking system server CPU usage, memory usage, application process status, and the number of data packets in a specified folder. Display results via web interface.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the system monitoring functionality comprehensively implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements monitoring for CPU usage (both overall and per core), memory usage (including physical and virtual memory), and system load. Score 0 if monitoring functionality is missing, 5 if only basic metrics are covered, and 10 if comprehensive monitoring with historical trends is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the process status monitoring fully functional?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code can properly list running processes with essential information (PID, name, CPU/memory usage, runtime), allow filtering processes by name/resource usage, and detect abnormal states. Deduct 3 points if process listing is incomplete, 4 points if sorting/filtering is missing, and 5 points if abnormal state detection isn't implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the data packet counting functionality correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that the code can accurately count files in a specified folder, categorize them by type, detect file size anomalies, and provide statistical summaries. Deduct 5 points if only basic counting is implemented without categorization, 3 points if file integrity checking is missing, and 5 points if there's no way to handle large directories efficiently. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the web interface properly implemented with responsive design?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the web interface displays all monitoring data clearly, refreshes automatically, adapts to different screen sizes, and provides an intuitive navigation system. Deduct 5 points if the interface is not responsive, 5 points if data visualization is poor/missing, and 3 points if automatic refresh functionality isn't implemented. 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 permission issues, network errors, missing directories, system call failures) 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. Alert thresholds with notifications 2. Interactive charts with drill-down capabilities 3. Historical data with trend analysis 4. Cross-server comparison). 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 monitoring functions 2. Function modules unrelated to system monitoring 3. Fancy effects that affect monitoring performance or accuracy. 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 backend/frontend, data collection/presentation layers), error handling, logging mechanisms, and configuration options. Deduct 3 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high; deduct 4 points if there's no configuration flexibility for monitoring parameters. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional monitoring dashboard standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the dashboard follows monitoring UI best practices: 1) Clear information hierarchy with critical alerts highlighted 2) Consistent use of color coding for status indicators 3) Proper data visualization (charts, gauges, tables) for different metrics. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 3 points for poor color contrast/accessibility issues, and 4 points for inappropriate visualization choices. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction practical for a monitoring system?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interface provides: 1) Real-time data updates without page reloads 2) Intuitive controls for time range selection and data filtering 3) Quick access to critical information with minimal clicks 4) Efficient data refresh that doesn't impact browser performance. Deduct 3 points for refresh implementations that cause flickering, 3 points for difficult navigation between monitoring sections, and 4 points for slow loading times with large datasets. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/vacuum-oven-interface-kunlun-tongtai-tpc1031k.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1457,
-  "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 for demonstration. I am an electrical engineer who wants to create an interface for a vacuum oven with baking/heating functionality using Kunlun Tongtai TPC1031K. The requirements are that it should be able to store records and retrieve vacuum curves and temperature curves.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the vacuum oven control interface fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements core control elements for the TPC1031K interface including temperature setting, vacuum level monitoring, and real-time status display. Score 0 if the core control functions are missing, 5 if basic controls are implemented but lack precision controls, and 10 if all essential vacuum oven functions (temperature range validation, vacuum threshold alerts, safety interlocks) are fully included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the data recording and storage functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes proper data logging mechanisms for both vacuum curves and temperature curves with appropriate sampling rates (at least once per minute for critical processes). Verify if the code properly handles data persistence through power cycles. Deduct 5 points if there's no data backup mechanism, and 3 points if the sampling rate is insufficient for process monitoring. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the curve visualization system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper data visualization components for both temperature and vacuum curves with appropriate scaling, units, and time axis representation. Check if the visualization allows for zooming, comparison of multiple records, and export capabilities. Deduct 5 points if the visualization doesn't support multiple time scales, and 3 points if important visual markers (setpoints, thresholds) are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the integration with TPC1031K controller properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code correctly interfaces with the Kunlun Tongtai TPC1031K controller using the appropriate communication protocol. Check for proper error handling during communication failures, command verification, and parameter validation. Deduct 5 points if the communication protocol is incorrect, 5 points if error handling is inadequate, and 3 points if parameter validation is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as sensor failures, communication interruptions, power fluctuations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should implement watchdog timers and graceful degradation. If the robustness is comprehensive, give 10 points. If basic error handling exists but lacks recovery mechanisms, 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. Predictive maintenance alerts based on performance patterns 2. Remote monitoring capabilities 3. Process recipe management with version control). 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 temperature conversion utilities) 2. Function modules unrelated to vacuum oven control (e.g., unnecessary multimedia features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down critical monitoring). 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 hardware interfaces/business logic/visualization layers), error logging mechanisms, and configuration management. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or industrial design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no configuration separation for different deployment environments. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet industrial control standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows industrial HMI principles: 1) High contrast display suitable for industrial environments 2) Proper alarm color coding (red for critical, yellow for warning) 3) Adequate touch target sizes (≥ 15mm) for operator use with gloves. Deduct 3 points for each ergonomic issue, 5 points for non-standard alarm colors, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the system response time appropriate for industrial control?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the performance meets industrial requirements: 1) Critical alarm response ≤ 500ms 2) UI refresh rate appropriate for process monitoring (≥ 1Hz for temperature, ≥ 2Hz for vacuum) 3) Command execution confirmation within 1 second. Deduct 5 points for each critical control with delayed feedback, 3 points for laggy visualization during normal operation, and 5 points for unresponsive emergency controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/virtual-smart-home-control-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1152,
-  "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 and demonstrable. Independently conceptualize and develop a \"Virtual Smart Home Control System.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the smart home device control system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements device management through HTML/JavaScript, including support for multiple device types (lighting, temperature control, security systems, appliances). Check if real-time device status monitoring, remote control commands, and device grouping/scene management are included. Score 0 if core device interaction is not implemented, 5 if only basic on/off control is provided, and 10 if comprehensive device ecosystem with status feedback and automation rules is fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the real-time data synchronization and IoT communication implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the WebSocket/MQTT implementation includes device heartbeat monitoring, command acknowledgment mechanisms, and automatic retry on communication failure. Real-time sensor data streaming and bidirectional device communication are required. Deduct 5 points if message queuing is missing, and 3 points if device offline detection is not handled properly. Evaluate integration with common IoT protocols (HTTP REST, CoAP, or simulated APIs). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the dashboard visualization and control interface professionally designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the dashboard uses modern data visualization techniques with real-time charts, device status widgets, and intuitive control panels. Check for responsive layout supporting both desktop and mobile interfaces. Require implementation of customizable dashboard layouts and widget arrangements. Deduct 5 points if data visualization is static or poorly designed, 3 points if mobile responsiveness is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the automation and scheduling system comprehensively constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes intelligent automation features such as time-based scheduling, condition-triggered scenes, and rule-based device interactions. Verify implementation of scene presets, energy management optimization, and user behavior learning capabilities. Deduct 5 points if only basic timer functions are provided, and 3 points if scene management lacks flexibility. Give 10 points if advanced automation with multiple trigger conditions and complex rule chains is fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as device offline scenarios, network interruption, invalid sensor readings, concurrent user operations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include graceful degradation, retry mechanisms, and comprehensive error handling, 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 smart home experience (e.g., 1. Voice control integration 2. AI-powered energy optimization suggestions 3. Predictive maintenance alerts 4. Augmented reality device placement guide 5. Integration with weather APIs for automatic adjustments). 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 control functions (e.g., multiple device management interfaces) 2. Function modules unrelated to smart home control (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Overly complex animations that impact dashboard performance (e.g., excessive particle effects on device status changes). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core smart home 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 device management/UI components/communication layers), configuration management, and deployment considerations. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper state management patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if configuration is hardcoded without environment-based settings. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the smart home interface follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent design system with appropriate color palette for device status indication 2) Proper information hierarchy with clear device grouping and status visibility 3) Professional typography with readable font sizes (≥14px) and appropriate contrast ratios 4) Intuitive iconography for different device types. Deduct 3 points for each confusing UI element, 5 points for poor color accessibility, and 5 points for cluttered layout affecting usability. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the control interactions conform to smart home UX expectations: 1) Device control response time ≤ 200ms with visual feedback 2) Smooth transitions between dashboard views (300-500ms) 3) Clear loading states for device commands 4) Intuitive gesture support for mobile devices 5) Real-time status updates without page refresh. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive control action, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points for unclear device status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/vue2-dji-drone-rtmp-streaming-windows-solution.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 236,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure the code you provide is executable for demonstration. Vue2 integration with DJI drone RTMP streaming complete solution (Windows 64 system)",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue2 application properly structured with RTMP streaming integration?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly structures a Vue2 application with components that handle RTMP streaming from DJI drones. Check if the application includes the necessary video player component (like vue-video-player or flv.js) configured correctly for RTMP streams. Score 0 if the core video streaming functionality is not implemented, 5 if basic streaming is implemented but with configuration issues, and 10 if the implementation is complete with proper component architecture and stream handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the DJI SDK integration properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements integration with the DJI Windows SDK. Check if the solution includes proper initialization of the DJI SDK, drone connection management, error handling, and permission management for Windows. Verify if the code handles SDK version compatibility (particularly for Windows 64-bit systems). Deduct 5 points if drone discovery mechanism is missing, and 3 points if error handling for connection failures is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the RTMP stream generation and management properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes a complete solution for generating RTMP streams from DJI drone camera feed. Verify if it includes configuration for an RTMP server (like Nginx with RTMP module or Node-Media-Server), proper stream key generation, and stream health monitoring. Deduct 5 points if no stream quality configuration options are provided, and 3 points if there's no mechanism to handle stream interruptions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the solution include a complete Windows-specific implementation?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code specifically addresses Windows 64-bit system requirements, including appropriate native module bindings, Windows-specific file path handling, and proper system resource management. Check for Windows permission handling for camera/USB access required by DJI drones. Deduct 5 points if the solution doesn't handle Windows-specific configuration, and 3 points if it doesn't manage Windows system resources properly. 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 drone connection loss, RTMP server failures, network interruptions, 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 video analysis and object detection 2. Multi-drone stream switching 3. Picture-in-picture mode for comparison feeds). 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 video player instances handling the same stream) 2. Function modules unrelated to drone streaming (e.g., unrelated social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect streaming performance (e.g., unnecessary video filters that increase CPU usage). 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 drone communication/RTMP server/frontend view 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 streaming performance optimized for real-time operation?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the streaming implementation meets real-time requirements: 1) Latency under 500ms for video feed 2) UI responsiveness maintained during active streaming 3) Efficient resource usage (CPU/memory) on Windows 64-bit systems. Deduct 5 points for each second of stream delay beyond 1 second, 3 points for UI freezing during streaming operations, and 5 points if memory usage grows unchecked during extended operation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/web-driven-mouse-config-hid-protocol.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1429,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Develop a web-driven website about mice that can configure mouse buttons and DPI settings through the mouse's HID protocol.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the HID protocol implementation complete?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the HID protocol for mouse interaction, including reading device descriptors, sending/receiving control transfers, and handling feature reports. Check if the implementation supports USB standard HID reports (0x01-0x03) and vendor-specific reports. Score 0 if HID communication is not implemented, 5 if basic read/write operations are implemented, and 10 if the full protocol including error handling is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the mouse button configuration functionality comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code allows complete button remapping (primary, secondary, tertiary buttons, side buttons, scroll wheel buttons), macros assignment, and profile management. Check if the implementation handles button event propagation correctly. Deduct 3 points if only basic remapping is supported, 5 points if macro functionality is missing, and 7 points if profile management is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the DPI settings system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements multi-level DPI settings with visual indicators, on-the-fly DPI switching, and axis-independent DPI configuration (X/Y separate values). Verify that the implementation correctly calculates and applies the appropriate values to the mouse hardware. Deduct 3 points for each missing feature. Give 10 points for comprehensive implementation with DPI visualization and real-time preview.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the web interface communication with hardware devices secure and efficient?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of Web HID API usage, permission handling, and device connection management. Check if the code includes device detection, connection retries, and disconnection handling. Verify proper error messages when hardware access is denied. Deduct 5 points if no permission handling exists, 3 points if connection state management is poor, and 3 points if there's no error recovery mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases (unsupported devices, permission denials, disconnections during configuration, browser compatibility issues). Code with strong robustness should include feature detection, graceful degradation, and informative error messages. Give 10 points for comprehensive edge case handling, 5 points for basic error handling, 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. Real-time input visualization 2. Heatmap of button usage 3. Advanced macro recording with timing preservation 4. Sensor calibration tools). 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 device polling mechanisms 2. Unnecessary device reconnection attempts 3. Excessive or duplicate UI elements for the same function. 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 device communication, UI, state management), error handling strategies, and cross-browser compatibility. Deduct 3 points if global state pollution exists, 4 points if no abstraction layers separate hardware communication from UI logic, and 3 points if no fallback mechanisms exist for unsupported browsers. 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) Mouse visualization is accurate and proportional 2) Configuration controls are logically grouped and labeled 3) Visual feedback indicates active settings and changes. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 3 points for confusing button/control labeling, and 4 points for lack of visual feedback during configuration. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects enhance usability: 1) Real-time preview of button assignments 2) Visual confirmation of DPI changes 3) Clear indication of connection status 4) Smooth transitions between configuration screens. Deduct 2.5 points for each missing interaction enhancement. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/web-joystick-esp32-car-control.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1204,
-  "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. Now I need you to simply create a program where a virtual joystick on a webpage controls the movement of a small car with four motors. The main controller board is an ESP32.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the virtual joystick UI implementation complete and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the HTML/CSS/JavaScript implementation creates a responsive, touch-compatible joystick that provides clear visual feedback. Check if it tracks both X/Y position with appropriate sensitivity and returns to center when released. Score 0 if no visual joystick exists, 5 if basic implementation without proper touch events, 10 if fully responsive with visual feedback and smooth touch/mouse interaction.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the motor control logic properly implemented on the ESP32?",
-      "description": "Review the ESP32 code for proper motor driver initialization, PWM setup and pin control. Check if the code handles differential steering (different speeds on left/right wheels) and includes proper ramping to avoid sudden starts/stops. Deduct 5 points if motor safety limits are missing, 3 points if PWM frequency is inappropriate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the communication between the web interface and ESP32 properly established?",
-      "description": "Assess if WebSocket or HTTP protocol implementation is complete with proper handshaking, error handling, and reconnection capabilities. Check if the communication handles connection drops gracefully. Deduct 5 points if the communication is one-way only, 3 points if security measures like CORS or authentication are missing, and 5 points if no connection status is displayed to users. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the control translation from joystick position to motor commands accurate?",
-      "description": "Verify the mathematical model that converts joystick X/Y coordinates to individual motor speeds. Check for proper handling of steering angles, forward/reverse transitions, and speed control. Deduct 5 points if the algorithm doesn't support diagonal movement, 3 points if speed scaling is linear rather than exponential for fine control, and 5 points if no deadzone handling exists. 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, erratic joystick input, motor stalls, low battery, 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. Battery level indicator 2. Speed/distance telemetry visualization 3. Obstacle detection feedback 4. Custom control profiles). 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 joystick libraries coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to car control (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive CSS transitions). 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/communication/motor control layers), exception handling, and code organization. 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 proper comments and documentation 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 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 visual hierarchy (clear distinction between control elements and feedback displays). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor mobile responsiveness. 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) Joystick response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Car movement feedback within 200ms 3) Smooth animation for joystick movement. Deduct 5 points for noticeable input lag, 3 points for jerky joystick movement, and 5 points if the car response doesn't match joystick position accurately. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/wifi-sharing-mini-program-advertisement-integration.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1058,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable. Create a mini program for WiFi sharing, with interfaces reserved for advertisement integration.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WiFi sharing core functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements the essential WiFi sharing mechanism, including scanning available networks, displaying WiFi information (SSID, signal strength, security type), and generating QR codes or other sharing methods. Score 0 if core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic display is implemented, and 10 if complete with encryption handling and connection verification.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the advertisement integration interface properly designed?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes well-defined interfaces for ad integration (banner ads, interstitial ads, rewarded ads). Verify if placeholder components are strategically positioned without disrupting user flow, with proper event hooks for ad loading/display. Deduct 5 points if interfaces are poorly defined, 3 points if ad placements interfere with core functionality. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the program handle WiFi permissions and security appropriately?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code properly requests and handles necessary permissions (location services for WiFi scanning, network access). Verify if it implements security measures to protect sensitive WiFi credentials (password encryption/masking, secure sharing). Deduct 5 points for missing permission handling, 5 points for security vulnerabilities. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is cross-platform compatibility addressed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the mini program works across multiple platforms (Android/iOS/Web), with appropriate platform detection and conditional logic for platform-specific WiFi APIs. Check if it gracefully degrades functionality when certain features aren't available. Deduct 5 points if major platforms are unsupported, 3 points if platform-specific bugs exist. 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 permission denied, network unavailable, disconnected WiFi, invalid credentials) 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. WiFi speed testing functionality 2. Password strength assessment 3. Connection history with usage statistics 4. Automatic reconnection to preferred networks). 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 WiFi scanning methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to WiFi sharing (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when displaying WiFi lists). 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 WiFi service/UI/ad integration 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 scanning updates, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/windows-remote-desktop-multi-ip-management.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1689,
-  "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. Help me write a program that mimics Windows Remote Desktop, with the requirement that it can manage multiple IP addresses. Other functionality should remain unchanged.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the IP address management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a comprehensive IP address management system including adding, editing, deleting, and validating IP addresses. Check for categorization options (e.g., by department, frequency of use), search/filter functionality, and batch operations. Score 0 if no IP management exists, 5 if only basic CRUD operations are available, and 10 if advanced management features are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the remote desktop connection functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements RDP protocol or utilizes appropriate libraries (e.g., FreeRDP, xfreerdp, Remmina) with proper parameters. Check if connection settings like screen resolution, color depth, audio redirection, and clipboard sharing are configurable. Deduct 5 points if the connection implementation is incomplete, and 3 points if advanced options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are authentication mechanisms secure and comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements secure authentication methods (username/password, certificates, multi-factor authentication), credential storage (encrypted, not plain text), and session management. Evaluate whether it includes timeout settings and secure credential handling. Deduct 5 points for plaintext password storage, 3 points for missing credential management UI, and 5 points for lack of session security features. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is session management and multi-connection handling implemented?",
-      "description": "Review if the code properly manages multiple concurrent RDP connections, allows switching between active sessions, and implements features like thumbnails of active connections, connection status indicators, and session restoration. Check for proper resource allocation and release when connecting/disconnecting. Deduct 5 points if simultaneous connections aren't supported, 3 points if session state isn't preserved. 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 timeouts, authentication failures, dropped connections, invalid IP formats) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper exception handling, logging, and automatic reconnection attempts. 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. Auto-discovery of machines on local network 2. Performance monitoring of remote sessions 3. Screen recording/session playback 4. Wake-on-LAN integration 5. Custom connection profiles with different security levels). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar connection methods 2. Function modules unrelated to remote desktop management (e.g., a built-in web browser) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations in the connection 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 connection logic/UI/credential management), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper error handling, logging, and configuration management. 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 consistent with Windows UI guidelines 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Intuitive connection status indicators. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for inconsistent styling with Windows UI, 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) Connection initiation feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance during connection process. Evaluate responsiveness during connection establishment and remote session interaction. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy interface transitions, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}