@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-editing-tool-with-transitions-and-text.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 693,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please write code to implement a video editing tool where users can upload multiple video clips, crop each clip, and adjust the order through drag and drop. The tool needs to support adding transition effects (fade-in/fade-out, cross-dissolve, wipe, etc. - at least 5 different effects), allow users to add text annotations and simple animation effects to videos. After completing the edits, users can preview the composite result and export it as MP4 format.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload and management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements file upload functionality for multiple video clips, includes proper MIME type validation, provides progress indicators during upload, and organizes uploaded clips in a manageable interface. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works without validation or progress indicators, and 10 if the system handles all aspects professionally including error handling for invalid file formats or failed uploads.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the basic video cropping/trimming functions properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes accurate video trimming capabilities with frame-precise control. The implementation should provide visual indicators for start/end points, preview thumbnails at different timestamps, and maintain video quality during trimming operations. Deduct 5 points if the trimming lacks frame-level precision, 3 points if there's no visual timeline for selection, and 3 points if the preview mechanism is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the drag-and-drop reordering functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements an intuitive drag-and-drop interface for reordering video clips, with visual feedback during dragging (such as placeholder indicators), smooth animations when clips are reordered, and proper state management to maintain the new sequence. Deduct 5 points if drag operations are jerky or imprecise, 3 points if visual feedback is missing during drag operations, and 5 points if the reordering doesn't persist correctly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the required transition effects implemented with proper controls?",
-      "description": "Verify that the code includes at least 5 distinct transition effects (fade-in/fade-out, cross-dissolve, wipe, etc.) with appropriate preview capabilities and duration controls. Each transition should be properly rendered between clips in the preview. Deduct 2 points for each missing required transition type, 5 points if transitions cannot be previewed, and 3 points if duration controls are missing or imprecise. 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 browser compatibility issues, interrupted uploads, corrupted video files, 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. AI-assisted editing suggestions 2. Automatic beat detection for music-synchronized transitions 3. One-click theme application across multiple clips and transitions). 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 players coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive background animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing logic/UI components/file handling), 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 video preview and export functionality complete and reliable?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the preview and export functions meet professional standards: 1) Real-time preview reflects all edits accurately 2) Export process shows clear progress indication 3) Multiple quality/format options for export 4) Exported files maintain original resolution quality. Deduct 5 points if preview performance is laggy, 5 points if export fails on complex projects, 3 points if exported files show quality degradation, and 3 points if format options are limited. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-filter-app-upload-effects-preview.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 572,
-  "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 whenever possible.\n\n## Role\nYou are an experienced code expert. You have been provided with a software development requirement description, and you need to generate project code based on this description. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate the complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without adding anything else.\n\n## Output Rules\n1. You should always generate complete and runnable code. Please ensure the project is complete and executable.\n2. Make sure all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code.\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated.\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data.\n\n## Project Requirements Description\nCreate a video filter application page where users can upload videos, choose different filter effects (such as vintage, black and white, blur, etc.), preview the filtered video in real-time, and save the filtered video to their local device.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is a complete video upload system implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements a robust video upload system with features like file validation (format check, size limit), progress indicator, preview thumbnail generation, and error handling for unsuccessful uploads. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if only basic upload is implemented without validation/progress indicators, and 10 if all features are included with proper error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are multiple video filter effects properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes at least 5 distinct filter effects (vintage, black and white, blur, saturation, etc.) with proper implementation using WebGL/Canvas API. Each filter should have accurate shader code or canvas processing algorithms. Deduct 2 points for each missing essential filter (vintage, B&W, blur). Score 10 if all filters have proper implementations with performance optimization, 5 if filters work but without optimization, 0 if filters are not functional.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is real-time video filter preview functionality working?",
-      "description": "Check if the application can apply filters in real-time while the video is playing without significant frame drops. The implementation should handle the video processing pipeline correctly using requestAnimationFrame or WebGL for optimal performance. Score 10 if preview is smooth (maintaining at least 24fps) even with complex filters, 5 if there's noticeable lag with complex filters, and 0 if real-time preview is not implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the filtered video export/save functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a complete video export system that processes the entire video with selected filters and allows downloading. Check if it handles different resolutions, maintains original aspect ratio, and preserves audio. Score 10 if export works properly with progress indicator and quality options, 5 if basic export works but lacks advanced options, and 0 if export functionality is missing or non-functional.",
-      "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 limitations 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. Filter intensity adjustment sliders 2. Custom filter creation tool 3. Filter application to specific video segments only). 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 filters (e.g., multiple blur algorithms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video filtering (e.g., a built-in media player with unnecessary features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive DOM animations during processing). 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/filter processing/file handling 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) Filter application feedback delay ≤ 200ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual guidance during processing operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for sluggish response when switching filters, and 5 points for confusing UI state during video processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-format-conversion-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 537,
-  "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. Create a video format conversion tool where users can upload videos in different formats and select a target format (such as MP4, AVI, MOV, etc.) for conversion. Provide a conversion progress display and support downloading the converted video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements file selection, upload validation (proper MIME types, file size limits), and client-side error handling. Score 0 if file upload is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload is present without validation, and 10 if comprehensive upload handling with proper file type checking, size limitations, and error handling is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the format conversion mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the back-end conversion logic uses reliable libraries (like FFmpeg), handles various input formats correctly, and provides proper error handling for malformed files. Deduct 5 points if only a limited set of formats is supported, and 3 points if file integrity verification is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the conversion progress display functioning correctly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the application provides real-time progress updates through a WebSocket or polling mechanism, displays meaningful progress indicators (not just indeterminate loaders), and handles edge cases like stalled conversions. Deduct 5 points if progress updates are not real-time, and 3 points if the UI doesn't show precise percentage completion. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the download functionality implemented with proper handling?",
-      "description": "Verify that the download mechanism creates proper file names, sets correct MIME types, handles large files appropriately (possibly using streaming), and provides fallbacks if browser download APIs fail. Deduct 5 points if download doesn't handle large files efficiently, and 3 points if there's no download status indication. 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 formats, corrupted files, server timeout, browser compatibility issues, 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. Video preview before/after conversion 2. Batch processing capability 3. Custom encoding parameters 4. Video trimming or basic editing). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video conversion (e.g., a built-in media player with unnecessary features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during conversion). 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 upload/conversion/download logic), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Upload and conversion state changes are visually clear 2) Transition animations are controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for primary actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jittery progress indicators, and 5 points for confusing conversion workflow UI. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-picture-in-picture-creation-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 600,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable whenever possible. Please implement a video Picture-in-Picture creation tool that allows users to upload two video clips, where one is reduced in size and floats at any position over the other video during playback. Users should be able to customize the size and position of the child video, and export the edited video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video uploading and processing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements robust file uploading for the two video clips, with proper input validation, file type verification (checking for valid video formats like MP4, WebM, etc.), and error handling for oversized files. Check if the code includes progress indicators during upload. Score 0 if uploading is not implemented, 5 if basic uploading exists but lacks validation, 10 if complete with all error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Picture-in-Picture (PiP) display system correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of displaying one video over another. Check for proper z-index management, canvas or HTML5 video element positioning, and whether the solution maintains proper aspect ratios. Ensure the main video and PiP video render correctly without performance issues. Score 0 if PiP display is not implemented, 5 if basic implementation but with rendering glitches, 10 if fully functional with smooth rendering.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the customization controls for PiP size and position properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check for interactive UI elements that allow users to resize (using handles or numeric inputs) and reposition (drag-and-drop or coordinate inputs) the PiP video. Verify that changes apply in real-time during preview. Deduct 5 points if only one type of customization is available, 3 points if the controls are unintuitive, 10 points if fully implemented with responsive feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the video export functionality working correctly?",
-      "description": "Analyze whether the code includes proper video compositing and export capabilities using WebCodecs API, FFmpeg.js, or server-side processing. Check if it handles different video codecs and preserves quality settings. Verify if progress indicators are provided during export. Deduct 5 points if export quality is poor, 5 points if no format options are available, and 10 points if fully functional with multiple output options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as incompatible 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. Real-time filters or effects for either video 2. Transition effects for PiP appearance/disappearance 3. Timeline editor for controlling when PiP appears). 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 video processing functions 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Resource-heavy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the UI). 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 logic/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). Check if video controls are intuitive and follow standard conventions. 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 video playback and editing controls respond appropriately: 1) Preview updates occur within 100ms of adjustment 2) Smooth transitions when resizing/moving PiP window 3) Clear visual feedback during drag operations. Check if the video scrubbing is smooth and if the video playback synchronization between main and PiP videos is maintained. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy video rendering during editing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-resolution-conversion-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 604,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Develop a video resolution conversion tool that supports converting uploaded videos to specified resolutions (maintaining aspect ratio), provides intelligent upscaling algorithm options (such as bicubic interpolation), and can batch process multiple video files.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core video resolution conversion functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements the essential video conversion functionality with proper libraries (FFmpeg, OpenCV, etc.). Check if it maintains aspect ratio during conversion and supports standard resolutions (720p, 1080p, 4K). Score 0 if conversion functionality is missing, 5 if basic conversion exists but without aspect ratio preservation, and 10 if all requirements are properly implemented with progress tracking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are multiple upscaling algorithm options provided?",
-      "description": "Verify implementation of different upscaling algorithms (bicubic, bilinear, Lanczos, AI-based like ESRGAN). Check if the code allows users to select algorithms and includes proper documentation about each algorithm's strengths. Deduct 3 points if only one algorithm is implemented, 5 points if algorithms are implemented but without proper comparison information, and 10 points if multiple algorithms with preview capability are available.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the batch processing functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code supports processing multiple videos simultaneously or in sequence. Check for queue management, progress tracking per file, and ability to cancel/pause the batch process. Deduct 5 points if batch processing exists but without proper status reporting, 3 points if it lacks pause/resume capability. Full score of 10 if it includes all features with efficient resource management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a user-friendly interface for video upload and parameter configuration?",
-      "description": "Assess if the interface provides drag-and-drop functionality, multiple file selection, preview thumbnails, and intuitive parameter controls (resolution selection, algorithm choice, output format). Deduct 3 points for missing upload progress indicators, 3 points for lack of input validation, and 4 points for unintuitive parameter controls. Full 10 points requires responsive design with mobile compatibility.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common exceptions (corrupt video files, unsupported formats, insufficient disk space, memory limitations during processing). Check for graceful error handling with user-friendly messages and recovery options. Code with strong robustness should validate inputs and provide detailed logging. Give 10 points if all scenarios are handled, 5 for partial handling, 0 if critical errors crash the application.",
-      "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 preview of different algorithms 2. Smart resolution recommendation based on content analysis 3. Automated batch profiles for different target devices). 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 conversion pipelines) 2. Function modules unrelated to video processing (e.g., a built-in media player with features beyond preview) 3. Resource-intensive features that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary real-time filters). 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 UI/conversion logic/file handling), error handling patterns, and performance optimization techniques. 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 no performance optimization is implemented for large video processing. 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) Operation feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual progress indicators during conversion. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jumpy progress indicators, and 5 points for interface freezing during processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-speed-adjustment-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 512,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure that the generated code can be executed as demonstrated. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I am providing you with a software development requirement description, and I need you to generate project code according to these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help the user generate complete project code with simple and understandable comments. Don't output anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You should always generate complete and runnable project code. Please ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete without omitting any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDevelop a video speed adjustment tool where users can upload video files and set the video playback speed (fast or slow) using a slider. Finally, export a video file with the applied speed change.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload functionality correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the application properly allows users to upload video files. Evaluate if the code handles different video formats (MP4, WebM, AVI, etc.), implements file size validation, and provides clear error handling for unsupported formats. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload with limited format support is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive upload with proper validation and error handling is provided.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the video playback speed adjustment feature properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the slider for speed adjustment is correctly implemented and effectively controls the playback rate. Check if the code supports a reasonable range of speeds (e.g., 0.25x to 4x) and updates the video playback in real-time as the slider moves. Deduct 3 points if the slider doesn't provide smooth transitions, 5 points if speed changes don't apply in real-time during preview, and 3 points if the range is too limited. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the video export functionality working as expected?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the application can successfully export videos with the modified playback speed. Check if the code uses MediaRecorder API or another appropriate method to generate the new video file, maintains original video quality, and provides progress indicators during processing. Score 0 if export is not implemented, 5 if basic export works but has quality issues or lacks progress indication, and 10 if export is fully functional with proper quality preservation and user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the user interface intuitive and responsive?",
-      "description": "Review the user interface design for the video speed adjustment tool. Check if all essential controls (upload button, playback controls, speed slider, export button) are clearly visible and properly positioned. Assess if the interface provides immediate visual feedback for user interactions and is responsive across different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each critical UI element that's difficult to find, 5 points for lack of responsive design, and 3 points for missing visual 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 corrupted video files, browser compatibility issues, memory constraints for large files, 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. Video preview thumbnails at different speeds 2. Audio pitch correction when changing speed 3. Batch processing for multiple videos 4. Ability to apply variable speed to different segments of the video). 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 processing libraries doing the same task) 2. Function modules unrelated to video speed adjustment (e.g., unnecessary image filters) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing/UI/data management layers), code reusability, and performance 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 no performance optimization techniques are implemented for video processing. 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 playback controls respond within 100ms 2) Smooth transitions when adjusting speed 3) Clear visual indication of processing state during export. Deduct 5 points for laggy video playback, 3 points for jerky slider movement, and 5 points for lack of loading indicators during processing operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-speed-curve-editor-with-audio-pitch.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 673,
-  "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 whenever possible. Implement a video speed curve editor where users can create custom speed curves (normal range 0.1x-4x), set multiple keyframe speed values on a timeline, and generate dynamically variable-speed videos while maintaining the original audio pitch.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the timeline and keyframe system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a timeline interface with keyframe insertion, manipulation, and deletion. Check if users can place keyframes at specific time points and assign speed values (0.1x-4x) to them. Score 0 if the timeline system is not implemented, 5 if basic keyframe placement exists but lacks editing capabilities, and 10 if the system allows complete keyframe management with visual feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the speed curve interpolation functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements proper interpolation between keyframes (linear, bezier, etc.) to create smooth speed transitions. Check if the interpolation algorithm correctly calculates intermediate speed values between keyframes. Deduct 5 points if only linear interpolation is available, 3 points if the curve visualization doesn't match actual playback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the video processing engine capable of applying variable speed changes?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the implementation can actually modify video playback speed according to the defined curve. Check if it handles frame rate adjustments, frame dropping/duplication, or time remapping techniques. Deduct 5 points if the solution only supports constant speed segments rather than continuous variable speed, and 3 points if speed transitions cause visual artifacts. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is audio pitch preservation implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code includes algorithms for time-stretching audio without pitch shifting (like phase vocoder, WSOLA, or elastique). Check whether the implementation preserves the original audio pitch even when video speed changes. Deduct 5 points if pitch preservation is only partially implemented, 8 points if audio becomes distorted during significant speed changes. 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, out-of-range speed values, keyframe conflicts, browser compatibility issues, 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 preview of speed changes 2. Speed curve templates/presets 3. Export capability with different quality options). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple speed calculation algorithms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video speed editing (e.g., excessive filtering options) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations in the editor). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI logic/video processing/audio processing 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) Timeline scrubbing response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Keyframe manipulation with immediate visual feedback 3) Clear visual indication of current playback position and speed. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy timeline interactions, and 5 points for unintuitive curve manipulation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-subtitle-editor-with-timeline-export.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 587,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable whenever possible. Develop a video subtitle adding tool that allows users to upload videos and add multiple text captions using timeline markers. The tool should support customization of font, color, and position. Subtitles should include semi-transparent background boxes, and users should be able to export the final video with embedded subtitles.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload and processing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete video upload system with proper file type validation, progress indicators, and error handling. Check if it supports common video formats (MP4, WebM, MOV) and handles large files efficiently with chunked uploads. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or progress indicators, and 10 if all aspects are properly implemented with appropriate feedback to users.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are timeline markers and subtitle positioning systems fully functional?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the timeline interface allows precise timestamp marking for subtitle entry/exit points with millisecond accuracy. Check if the code implements visual indicators on the timeline, draggable markers, and preview capabilities. For positioning, verify that the system allows subtitles to be placed anywhere on the video canvas with x/y coordinates or predefined positions (bottom center, top left, etc.). Deduct 5 points if the timeline lacks fine-grained control or visual feedback, and 3 points if positioning options are limited. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is text styling and background customization comprehensively implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code provides complete font customization (family, size, weight, style), color selection with opacity controls, and semi-transparent background boxes with adjustable opacity, padding, and corner radius. Verify that the implementation includes live preview of style changes. Deduct 3 points if font options are limited, 3 points if color selection lacks opacity control, and 4 points if background customization is missing or incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the video export functionality with embedded subtitles properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements client-side or server-side rendering of the final video with permanently embedded subtitles. Check if it provides progress indication during rendering, maintains original video quality, and offers format/quality options. Evaluate if the solution handles subtitle rendering accurately according to timeline markers. Deduct 5 points if the export function uses temporary overlays instead of permanent embedding, 3 points if quality/format options are missing, and 2 points if progress indication is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as incompatible video formats, browser compatibility issues, network interruptions during upload/export, and encoding errors) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted subtitle generation from audio 2. Subtitle templates with animations 3. Multi-language subtitle track support 4. Automatic text timing based on speech detection). 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 text rendering engines) 2. Function modules unrelated to subtitle editing (e.g., excessive video editing tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the interface). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing/subtitle rendering/UI components), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Video scrubbing response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Timeline marker operations respond immediately 3) Text editing updates preview in real-time. Deduct 5 points for laggy video timeline navigation, 3 points for delayed text preview updates, and 5 points for non-intuitive subtitle positioning controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}