@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/merge-upload-images-uniapp-canvas.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 246,
-  "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. Please provide code for merging two images using canvas in uniapp and uploading them to the server.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image merging functionality correctly implemented using canvas in UniApp?",
-      "description": "Verify that the code correctly loads and merges two images on a canvas element compatible with UniApp. Check if it handles different image sizes (scaling/positioning), maintains aspect ratios, and processes images without distortion. Score 0 if canvas merging is not implemented, 5 if basic merging is done without handling edge cases, and 10 if the solution is comprehensive with proper error handling for image loading.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the image upload mechanism to server properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes complete HTTP/HTTPS upload functionality using UniApp's upload APIs (uni.uploadFile). Check if it properly handles authentication, includes progress tracking, manages timeouts, and implements retry mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if upload error handling is missing, and 3 points if there's no upload progress indication. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the solution handle the UniApp cross-platform compatibility?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code accounts for platform differences in canvas API implementation across different platforms (iOS, Android, H5, mini-programs). Check if conditional code is used to handle platform-specific issues, and if polyfills are implemented where needed. Deduct 5 points if the solution works on only one platform, 3 points if minor platform-specific adjustments are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the image processing optimization implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the solution includes image optimization techniques such as compression before upload, proper memory management for large images, and canvas size optimization. Check if the code handles different image formats and converts them appropriately. Deduct 5 points if there's no compression implementation, 3 points if memory management is poor. 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 image loading failures, network issues during upload, unsupported image formats, 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. Image filters or effects during merging 2. Drag-and-drop positioning of images before merging 3. Preview functionality with adjustable parameters). 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 image processing operations that could be optimized 2. Function modules unrelated to image merging and uploading 3. Unnecessary canvas operations that impact 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 image processing/UI/network layers), error handling practices, and code reusability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation between business logic and UI components. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI elements for image selection, merging preview, and upload progress follow 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) Visual feedback during image loading and processing ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions between selection, preview, and upload states 3) Clear upload progress indication. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky animations during processing, and 5 points for unclear upload status indication. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/multi-functional-image-creation-tool-webpage.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 355,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Help me create a multi-functional image creation tool webpage that doesn't require login. Please provide a specific product solution.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic image creation functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements core drawing capabilities through HTML5 Canvas/SVG, including basic tools (pen, shapes, text, eraser), color selection, and layer management. Score 0 if the core drawing functionality is missing, 5 if only basic tools are implemented, and 10 if comprehensive drawing features with proper event handling are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the implementation include advanced image editing features?",
-      "description": "Check for implementation of advanced features like filters, transformations (resize, rotate, crop), blend modes, and image adjustment controls (brightness, contrast, saturation). Deduct 3 points if only basic transformations exist, 5 points if filters are missing, and 7 points if no image adjustments are available. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there a mechanism for saving/exporting created images?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the tool provides options to export in different formats (PNG, JPEG, SVG), with customizable quality settings and dimensions. Check if temporary local storage is implemented for auto-saving work. Deduct 5 points if only one export format is supported, and 8 points if no export functionality exists. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the image creation tool usable without login requirements?",
-      "description": "Verify that all functionality works without authentication while still preserving user work through local storage or temporary session mechanisms. Check if the implementation uses browser storage APIs appropriately. Deduct 10 points if any core functionality requires authentication, 5 points if local storage is not utilized for preserving work. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid image uploads, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large canvases, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted drawing tools 2. Community template gallery without login 3. One-click image enhancement algorithms). 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 color picker systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to image creation (e.g., a news feed) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the drawing experience). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating drawing logic/UI/storage layers), component reusability, and build process optimization. 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 optimized for performance. 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 tool organization (grouped by function with clear visual hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for cluttered toolbars, 5 points for poor color contrast affecting usability, and 5 points for inconsistent icon styles. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the drawing interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) No lag between input and drawing (≤ 20ms) 2) Smooth canvas zooming/panning 3) Intuitive tool selection and parameter adjustment. Deduct 5 points for noticeable drawing lag, 3 points for jerky canvas manipulation, and 5 points for confusing tool interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/online-dynamic-image-sticker-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 640,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please develop an online dynamic sticker tool where users can upload images and add animated stickers (such as animated emojis, dynamic text effects, etc.) to their images. Users should be able to adjust the position, size, and animation effects of the stickers, preview the dynamic effects, and then download the processed image in GIF or video format.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload and processing system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code supports multiple image formats (JPEG, PNG, WebP) with proper file validation, size limits, and error handling. Check if image preview, canvas rendering, and memory management are properly implemented. Score 0 if basic upload is missing, 5 if only basic upload works without validation, and 10 if complete image processing pipeline with optimization is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the animated sticker library and management system complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system includes a comprehensive sticker library with categorized animated emojis, dynamic text effects, and custom animation templates. Check if stickers support multiple formats (GIF, CSS animations, Canvas animations) and include proper loading states. Deduct 5 points if animation performance is poor (>16ms frame time), 3 points if sticker categories are limited (<10 types). Full score requires 20+ animated stickers with smooth performance.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the sticker manipulation controls precise and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Check whether users can accurately position, resize, rotate, and layer stickers with touch/mouse controls. Evaluate if the system includes snap-to-grid, multi-select, undo/redo, and transform handles. Require smooth drag-and-drop with visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if transformation controls are clunky or imprecise, 3 points if layering/z-index management is missing. Full score needs pixel-perfect control with gesture support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the real-time preview and export functionality robust?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system provides real-time preview of animated compositions with accurate timing and synchronization. Check if export supports multiple formats (GIF, MP4, WebM) with quality/size options and progress indicators. Deduct 5 points if preview doesn't match final export, 5 points if export quality is poor or fails frequently. Require frame-accurate preview and reliable multi-format export.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as oversized files, corrupted images, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like network failures during upload, canvas memory limits, and animation conflicts, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the creative experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered sticker suggestions based on image content 2. Collaborative editing with real-time sharing 3. Advanced animation timeline editor 4. Social sharing with custom templates 5. Voice-to-text animated captions). 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 animation engines (e.g., multiple canvas renderers coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to sticker editing (e.g., built-in photo filters or games) 3. Performance-heavy effects that don't add value (e.g., excessive particle systems or 3D transforms). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core sticker functionality is compromised by bloated features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separating upload/canvas/animation/export modules), performance optimization for canvas operations, and proper asset management. Deduct 5 points if memory leaks are found in animation loops or canvas operations; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance monitoring or optimization is implemented. Full score requires clean architecture with efficient rendering pipeline.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the creative tool interface follows modern design principles: 1) Intuitive toolbar layout with clear iconography 2) Consistent spacing and visual hierarchy (8px grid system) 3) Professional color scheme suitable for creative work 4) Proper typography with readable labels (≥14px). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered interface element, 5 points for poor contrast or accessibility issues, and 5 points for confusing navigation or tool organization. Full score requires polished, designer-friendly interface.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the creative workflow feels responsive and natural: 1) Sticker drag operations with <50ms latency 2) Animation preview at consistent 30+ FPS 3) Smooth zoom/pan controls for canvas navigation 4) Immediate visual feedback for all tool interactions. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for animation stuttering or frame drops, and 5 points for unresponsive touch/click areas. Full score requires fluid, professional-grade creative tool performance.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/online-image-annotation-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 641,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. You Are A Code Expert\n\nYou are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable and demonstrable.\n\n## Role\n\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code according to this requirement. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code that is fully commented in simple, easy-to-understand language. Don't output anything else.\n\n## Output Rules\n\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is complete and executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot execute or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements include external API access needs or require user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n## Project Requirements Description\n\nDesign an online image annotation tool where users can upload images and add annotations (such as rectangles, circles, text) on the images. Support editing and deleting annotations, and enable exporting the annotated images.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic image upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes a complete image upload function with proper file validation (type, size), preview capabilities, and error handling. The upload component should support drag-and-drop and file browser dialog. Score 0 if image upload is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or error handling, and 10 if fully implemented with all features and feedback mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are all required annotation tools implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements all necessary annotation tools (rectangles, circles, text) with proper drawing capabilities. Each tool should have clear selection states and visual feedback. Score 2 points for each well-implemented tool type (rectangle, circle, text). Add 2 points if the annotation tools have configuration options (color, line width, etc.). Add 2 points if the tool implementation includes snapping or alignment guides for precise positioning.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is annotation editing and manipulation functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Check if users can select, move, resize, and rotate existing annotations. Review whether the code includes proper event handling for manipulation (mouse/touch events), transformation calculations, and state management. Score 0 if editing is missing, 5 if basic editing exists but lacks some features (e.g., rotation), and 10 if fully implemented with all manipulation capabilities and proper visual feedback during edits.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the annotation deletion and history management implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code includes functionality to delete annotations and whether it implements undo/redo operations. Check if the annotation state history is properly tracked for these operations. Score 3 points for basic deletion functionality, 3 points for proper history state management, and 4 points for complete undo/redo implementation with keyboard shortcuts support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid image formats, browser compatibility issues, large images, multiple concurrent 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. Auto-save functionality 2. Keyboard shortcuts for all operations 3. Annotation templates or presets 4. Collaborative editing features). 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 handle the same event) 2. Function modules unrelated to image annotation (e.g., a built-in photo editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down annotation rendering). 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 annotation logic/view/data models), code reusability, 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) Immediate visual feedback when drawing annotations 2) Smooth selection and manipulation of objects 3) Clear visual focus guidance for active tools and selected annotations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy annotation rendering during manipulation, and 5 points for confusing tool state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/online-image-clipboard-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 550,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to produce executable code wherever possible. Please implement an online image clipboard tool where users can upload images, cut out specified areas, and save the cropped portions as new images. The tool should support freely selecting the size and position of the crop area, and provide real-time preview of the cropping effect.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements file selection, drag-and-drop uploads, and handles various image formats (JPG, PNG, GIF, WebP). Verify proper error handling for invalid file types and oversized images. Deduct 5 points if only basic file input is implemented without drag-and-drop, 3 points if image format validation is missing, and 2 points if there's no proper upload feedback. Score 0 if the upload functionality is not implemented at all. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the image cropping interface fully functional?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the cropping interface allows users to precisely select an area with resizable and movable selection box. Check if it provides visual guides (rule of thirds, golden ratio), aspect ratio constraints, and handles edge cases like small images. Score 0 if cropping functionality isn't implemented, 5 if only basic selection is available, and 10 if it includes advanced features like maintaining aspect ratios and intuitive resizing handles on all corners and edges. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is real-time preview of the cropped image implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that the interface shows a real-time preview of the cropped area as users adjust the selection. Check for smooth updates without performance degradation on larger images. The preview should accurately represent the final output. Score 0 if no preview exists, 5 if preview is present but not real-time or has significant lag, and 10 if preview updates instantly and accurately reflects the final output including any applied transformations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the save/export functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if users can save the cropped image in multiple formats (PNG, JPG, WebP) with customizable quality settings. Verify that the download works correctly with proper filenames and maintains image quality. Score 0 if saving isn't implemented, 5 if only basic download is available with no format options, and 10 if it offers multiple export formats, quality controls, and proper file handling including fallbacks for browsers with limited support. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common exceptional cases like browser incompatibilities, memory limitations with large images, and network issues during uploads. Code should gracefully degrade and provide helpful error messages. Deduct 3 points for each unhandled critical edge case (failed uploads, browser crashes with large images, CORS issues). Give 10 points if all reasonable error conditions are handled with clear user feedback, 5 points for average robustness, and 0 points if critical failures occur under normal usage scenarios.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Image enhancement tools like brightness/contrast adjustment 2. Auto-crop suggestions based on image content 3. Batch processing for multiple images 4. Cloud storage integration for processed images). 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 cropping algorithms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to image cropping (e.g., a built-in music player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 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 (separation of concerns between image processing, UI components, and storage), code reusability, and performance optimization (efficient canvas operations, proper memory management for large images). Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code has memory leaks when handling multiple images; deduct 3 points if canvas operations are inefficient and cause lag. 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 that doesn't distract from the images being edited 2) Proper layout with clear separation between tools, preview area, and controls 3) Consistent UI elements with appropriate sizing for touch devices. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic tool arrangement that hinders workflow. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the cropping interaction conforms to expected behavior: 1) Responsive selection box with no perceptible lag 2) Smooth transitional feedback when adjusting crop area 3) Intuitive controls that follow standard patterns (e.g., corner handles for resizing). Deduct 5 points for jerky movement when resizing selection, 3 points for delayed visual feedback during cropping adjustments, and 5 points for non-standard interaction patterns that confuse users. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/online-image-compression-tool-with-preview-and-options.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 653,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Develop an online image compression tool where users can upload images, view the compressed file size and compression ratio, preview the compression effect in real-time, and choose from various compression level options.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements file upload with proper validation for image formats (at minimum JPG, PNG, GIF), handles file size limits, and provides progress indication during upload. Check for error handling when invalid file types are selected or upload fails. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works but lacks validation/error handling, and 10 if fully implemented with all necessary validations and user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the image compression algorithm properly implemented with multiple options?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements various compression algorithms or compression levels (at least 3 different options). Check if it properly maintains aspect ratio, handles different color profiles, and applies proper quality reduction techniques. Deduct 5 points if only a single compression method is available, 3 points if important parameters like quality factor are not adjustable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the tool provide real-time preview and comparison functionality?",
-      "description": "Check if the application provides side-by-side comparison between original and compressed images, enables zooming into specific areas to compare details, and updates preview in real-time when compression settings change. Deduct 5 points if comparison requires page reload, 3 points if there's no zoom functionality for detail inspection, and 5 points if image switching is not seamless. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are compression metrics clearly displayed and accurate?",
-      "description": "Verify if the tool accurately displays original file size, compressed file size, compression ratio, and estimated quality loss. Check if the data updates immediately when compression settings change and if values are properly formatted (KB/MB with appropriate decimal places). Deduct 5 points if calculations are inaccurate, 3 points if metrics don't update in real-time, and 5 points if critical metrics are 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 large image files, corrupt images, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Batch processing multiple images 2. Custom presets for different output purposes like social media platforms 3. Automatic suggestion of optimal compression settings 4. Image editing capabilities before compression). 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 compression libraries doing the same work) 2. Function modules unrelated to image compression (e.g., unrelated social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations slowing 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 UI/compression logic/file handling), error handling, memory management for large images, 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 WebWorkers aren't used for heavy compression tasks to prevent UI freezing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy between original and compressed images. 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) Image preview loads within 500ms 2) Compression process shows progress indicator 3) Settings adjustments reflect in preview with minimal delay 4) Download option is clearly presented after compression. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy UI during compression processing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/optimize-image-and-generate-html-file.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 737,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you provide is executable for demonstration. The image dimensions seem incorrect. I have sent you layer-1.jpg, please optimize it and then write all the code in a single HTML file. Can you accomplish this?",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image optimization process correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly analyzes and optimizes the received image (layer-1.jpg). Check if it addresses dimensions, aspect ratio, file size, quality, and format. Score 0 if no optimization is performed, 5 if basic resizing is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive optimization (resizing, compression, format conversion if needed) is properly executed.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the HTML structure properly organized for the image display?",
-      "description": "Examine if the HTML document follows semantic markup principles with appropriate tags (<figure>, <picture>, etc.) for image presentation. Check if responsive design principles are applied (max-width, viewport settings). Deduct 5 points if basic HTML structure is missing, 3 points if non-semantic tags are used inappropriately. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are proper image loading techniques implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements modern image loading techniques like lazy loading, progressive loading, or uses the 'loading' attribute. Check if fallback options are provided for browsers that don't support certain features. Deduct 5 points if no optimization techniques are used, 3 points if implementation is basic without fallbacks. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the optimized image correctly integrated into a single HTML file?",
-      "description": "Verify if the image is properly embedded within a single HTML file as requested, either through base64 encoding, data URI scheme, or another appropriate method. Score 0 if the image is not integrated into a single file, 5 if basic integration exists but with issues, and 10 if seamlessly integrated with proper encoding and performance considerations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as image loading failures, unsupported browser features, etc.) and provide friendly error handling or fallback 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. Progressive image loading effect 2. Zoom/pan functionality 3. Dynamic image optimization based on viewport). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple image loading methods when one would suffice) 2. Function modules unrelated to image optimization (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy JavaScript that slows down image rendering). 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 code organization, error handling patterns, cross-browser compatibility considerations, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global namespace pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code is not modular or contains excessive comments/unnecessary complexity; deduct 5 points if performance best practices are ignored. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the image display meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the image presentation follows modern design principles: 1) Proper containment within viewport 2) Appropriate padding/margins around the image 3) Professional styling considerations (borders, shadows, etc. if applied). Deduct 3 points for poor image containment, 5 points for inadequate spacing, and 5 points for unprofessional styling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the user experience smooth and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the image display experience is optimal: 1) Fast loading with visual indication during loading 2) Proper image scaling on different viewports 3) Intuitive interaction if any interactive elements are added. Deduct 5 points for slow loading without indicators, 3 points for poor scaling on mobile devices, and 5 points for confusing or unintuitive interactive elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/video-screenshot-tool-with-editing-and-export.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 633,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable whenever possible. Create a video screenshot tool that allows users to upload videos and select screenshot points on a timeline. After taking screenshots, users should be able to perform simple edits (such as cropping, adding text) and export the screenshots as image files.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload and playback functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements proper video file upload handling, format validation (common formats like MP4, WebM, MOV), and smooth playback controls. Check for error handling during uploads (file size limits, format restrictions). Score 0 if video upload/playback is not implemented, 5 if only basic functionality works, and 10 if it includes advanced features like buffering indicators and adaptive playback quality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the timeline screenshot selection mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of timeline navigation, timestamp marking, and frame-precise screenshot capture. Check if the timeline shows proper video duration, allows precise seeking, and provides visual feedback when screenshot points are selected. Deduct 5 points if the timeline lacks proper time markers, 3 points if screenshot preview is missing, and 3 points if the selected frame differs from the actual screenshot. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the screenshot editing capabilities comprehensive and functional?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of editing features such as cropping, resizing, text annotation, and basic shape drawing. Check if the cropping tool provides proper handles and aspect ratio options, and if text editing includes font selection, size adjustment, and positioning. Deduct 5 points if cropping functionality is buggy, 3 points if text positioning is imprecise, and 2 points if undo/redo functionality is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the screenshot export functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code provides options for exporting screenshots in common formats (PNG, JPG, etc.), with configurable quality settings and appropriate file naming. Verify that the export process includes proper progress indication and error handling. Deduct 5 points if only one format is supported, 3 points if quality settings are missing, and 2 points if the export process lacks proper feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported video formats, browser compatibility issues, memory constraints with large videos, 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. Batch screenshot mode at regular intervals 2. Automatic scene detection for suggested screenshots 3. Instagram-style filters for screenshots 4. OCR text recognition from video frames). 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 cropping methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to video screenshot (e.g., a built-in music player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or filters 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 video processing/UI/export modules), 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) Video scrubbing responds within 100ms 2) Screenshot capture and editing state transitions occur within 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback during processing operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy timeline scrubbing, and 5 points for confusing editing tool state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}