@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-subtitle-generation-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 670,
-  "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. Create a subtitle generation tool where users can upload videos and add corresponding subtitle text based on provided timestamps. Support customization of font, color, and size. Subtitles should display synchronously during video playback and can be exported together with the video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload and processing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements video file upload with proper format validation (MP4, WebM, AVI, etc.), file size restrictions, and progress indicators. Check if video metadata extraction (duration, resolution, frame rate) is correctly implemented and displayed. Score 0 if basic upload is not working, 5 if only simple upload without validation is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive upload with metadata processing and error handling is fully included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the timestamp-based subtitle synchronization system implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the subtitle timing system includes accurate timestamp parsing, real-time synchronization with video playback, and frame-accurate positioning. Evaluate if the code handles subtitle display/hide transitions smoothly and supports common subtitle formats (SRT, VTT). Deduct 5 points if synchronization drift exceeds 100ms, and 3 points if subtitle overlap handling is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the subtitle customization interface designed with comprehensive options?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the customization system provides real-time preview of font family selection, size adjustment (with proper scaling), color picker with transparency support, and positioning controls. Check if text styling options include bold, italic, outline, and shadow effects. Deduct 3 points if font rendering is inconsistent across browsers, and 5 points if real-time preview is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the video export functionality with embedded subtitles constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes video processing capabilities to permanently embed subtitles into the video file, maintaining original quality and supporting multiple output formats. Evaluate if the export process includes progress tracking, quality options, and batch processing capabilities. Deduct 5 points if subtitles are only overlaid without proper encoding, and 3 points if export progress feedback is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with multiple format support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted video files, invalid timestamp formats, memory limitations during processing, 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. Auto-subtitle generation using speech recognition 2. Multi-language subtitle support with translation 3. Subtitle template library with preset styles 4. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient editing 5. Waveform visualization for audio timing). 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 subtitle generation (e.g., built-in video editing tools) 3. Heavy processing that affects performance (e.g., unnecessary real-time video filters). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core subtitle 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 engine/UI layers), error handling patterns, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if memory leaks are found in video processing or DOM manipulation; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper cleanup of video resources is implemented. 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) Clean timeline interface with clear timestamp markers 2) Intuitive drag-and-drop subtitle positioning 3) Professional video player controls with subtitle preview 4) Consistent spacing and typography (following 8px grid system). Deduct 3 points for each confusing UI element, 5 points for poor contrast in subtitle preview, and 5 points for cluttered timeline or control panels. 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) Subtitle appearance/disappearance transitions are smooth (200-300ms) 3) Timeline scrubbing provides immediate visual feedback 4) Export progress updates smoothly without UI freezing. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for choppy video playback during subtitle editing, and 5 points for unresponsive timeline controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-timeline-bookmark-marking-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 662,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that the code you generate is executable for display. Develop a video timeline marking tool that allows users to add bookmark tags on the video timeline, attach text notes and thumbnails to each bookmark, support quick navigation through bookmarks, and export project files containing all marking information.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video player functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code creates a functional HTML5 video player that includes standard controls (play/pause, volume, fullscreen) and implements a custom timeline with proper event handling. The player should support common video formats (MP4, WebM) and handle video loading errors gracefully. Score 0 if no functional video player exists, 5 if only basic playback works, and 10 for a complete implementation with error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the bookmark tagging system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code allows users to create, edit, and delete bookmarks at specific timestamps on the video timeline. Bookmarks should be visually displayed on the timeline with proper positioning according to their timestamps. Deduct 5 points if bookmark creation is buggy, 3 points if bookmark positioning is inaccurate, and 2 points if editing functionality is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are text notes and thumbnails properly attached to bookmarks?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements functionality to add text notes to bookmarks and automatically generates thumbnails for each bookmark. Notes should be editable and thumbnails should accurately represent the video frame at the bookmark timestamp. Deduct 5 points if thumbnails aren't generated or are of poor quality, and 5 points if text note functionality is missing or incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is bookmark navigation and project export functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code implements quick navigation between bookmarks (clicking on a bookmark should seek the video to that timestamp) and allows exporting/importing project files containing all marking information (timestamps, notes, thumbnails). Deduct 5 points if navigation is not smooth or has bugs, and 5 points if export/import functionality is missing or incomplete. 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, large video files, concurrent bookmark 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. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient marking 2. Color-coding for different types of bookmarks 3. Timeline zooming for precision marking). 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 create bookmarks that confuse users) 2. Function modules unrelated to video marking (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 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 (such as separating video player/bookmark management/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) Bookmark creation response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animations when navigating between bookmarks controlled between 200-400ms 3) Clear visual indication of current bookmark and playback position. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky timeline scrolling, and 5 points for confusing navigation between bookmarks. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-timeline-chapter-editor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 486,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional replies. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable and demonstrable.\n\n## Role ##\nYou are an experienced code expert. I am providing you with a software development requirement description and asking you to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code that is fully commented with simple, easy-to-understand language, without outputting anything else.\n\n## Output Rules ##\n1. You will always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is complete and executable.\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code.\n3. Before final output, carefully review and check all code and evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated.\n4. If the requirements include external API access or require user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data.\n\n## Project Requirements Description ##\nPlease develop a video timeline marker and chapter editor. After users upload a video, they can add multiple markers and chapter divisions on the timeline. Each marker can have a title and description, forming a video chapter table of contents. Support quick navigation to corresponding video positions through the table of contents, and allow exporting video files containing chapter information or separate chapter metadata files (such as VTT format), to enable chapter navigation on various playback platforms.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code properly implements video file upload with validation for supported formats (mp4, webm, etc.), file size limits, and error handling. The upload process should include a progress indicator and gracefully handle interruptions. Score 0 if video upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists without proper validation, and 10 if complete with format checking, progress tracking, and error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the timeline marker system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code allows users to add, edit, delete, and visualize markers on the video timeline. Each marker should store timestamp, title, and description. The markers should be visually distinct on the timeline and clickable for navigation. Deduct 3 points if markers cannot be edited, 3 points if visual representation is unclear, and 4 points if navigation to markers doesn't work correctly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the chapter division functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code enables users to create logical chapters by setting start/end times or connecting markers. Chapters should be visually represented on the timeline with distinct boundaries and be editable (rename, merge, split, delete). Score 0 if chapter creation isn't implemented, 5 if basic functionality exists but lacks editing capabilities, and 10 if the feature is complete with intuitive visualization and full editing support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the export functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code supports exporting chapter metadata in standard formats (VTT, JSON, etc.) and/or embedding chapter information in video files. The exported data should correctly maintain all timestamp information and metadata. Deduct 5 points if only one export format is supported, 3 points if the exported files contain formatting errors, and 5 points if the export process is not user-friendly. 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 video formats, browser compatibility issues, timestamp conflicts, 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 chapter detection 2. Real-time collaborative editing 3. Customizable chapter thumbnails 4. Keyboard shortcuts for quick marking). 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 create markers that overlap in functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to video timeline marking (e.g., a built-in image editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during timeline operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating video processing/UI/data management 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 ≤ 100ms 2) Marker creation feedback within 200ms 3) Clear visual indication when navigating between chapters. Deduct 5 points for laggy timeline interactions, 3 points for delayed feedback when adding/editing markers, and 5 points for unclear or confusing navigation between chapters. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-to-gif-converter-platform.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 688,
-  "question": "You are a code expert; please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I will provide you with a software development requirement description, and you need to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You should always generate complete runnable project code, please ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code\n3. Before the final output, carefully review and check all code to evaluate 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 DESCRIPTION ========\nDesign an online platform that can be used to convert videos to GIF animation files. After uploading a video, users can select the start and end times, and adjust the output GIF's resolution and frame rate, preview the generated effect in real-time, and download the final file.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video to GIF conversion core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements the complete pipeline from video uploading to GIF generation. This includes video loading, time segment selection, conversion processing, and download functionality.Score 0 if conversion functionality is missing, 5 if basic conversion works but with limitations, and 10 if the full pipeline works seamlessly with proper error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are all required customization parameters implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify the implementation of all required customization options: start/end time selection, resolution adjustment, and frame rate control. Check if these parameters properly affect the output GIF.Deduct 2 points for each missing parameter. Deduct 3 points if parameters don't effectively impact the output. Full score requires intuitive UI controls for each parameter with appropriate ranges and defaults.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the real-time preview functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the solution provides real-time or near-real-time preview of the GIF based on the current parameter settings. Check if previews update when parameters change.Score 0 if preview is missing, 5 if preview exists but isn't responsive to parameter changes, and 10 if preview accurately reflects all parameter changes within 2 seconds of adjustment.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the download functionality complete and user-friendly?",
-      "description": "Check if the generated GIF can be properly downloaded, with appropriate file naming, quality preservation, and progress indication during processing.Deduct 3 points if download doesn't work reliably, 2 points if no progress indication is provided, and 2 points if file naming is not handled properly. Full score requires proper content disposition and mime types.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, large files, browser limitations, processing errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms.Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Batch processing 2. Additional filters/effects for GIFs 3. Social sharing capabilities 4. GIF optimization options).Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions 2. Function modules unrelated to video-to-GIF conversion 3. Fancy effects that affect performance and load times.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/file handling layers), error handling, performance optimization, and build process automation.Deduct 3 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 4 points if the processing is inefficient or unoptimized. 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 2) Proper layout spacing 3) Professional font system 4) Intuitive video timeline representation.Deduct 2 points for each crowded visual element, 3 points for poor color combinations, 3 points for chaotic layout, and 2 points for unintuitive time selection controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the platform responsive and cross-browser compatible?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the platform works across different screen sizes and major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge), and whether it provides appropriate loading states during processing.Deduct 2.5 points for each major browser with compatibility issues, 3 points for poor mobile/tablet adaptation, and 2 points for missing loading indicators or progress feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-transition-effect-editor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 576,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Please create a transition effect editor that allows users to add various transition effects to different clips in a video, such as fade-in/fade-out, slide, dissolve, etc. Users should be able to preview each transition effect, adjust its duration, and ultimately generate a video with the transition effects.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the transition effect editor interface fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code creates a comprehensive UI with elements for video upload, clip management, transition selection, timeline visualization, and preview functionality. Score 0 if the core interface elements are missing, 5 if basic elements are present but not fully functional, and 10 if the interface includes drag-and-drop capabilities, clear visual indicators for transitions, and intuitive controls for adjusting transition parameters.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the core transition effects properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements at least the following transitions with proper parameterization: fade-in/fade-out, dissolve, wipe (multiple directions), slide (multiple directions), zoom, and rotation. Each effect should have customizable duration and easing functions. Deduct 2 points for each missing core transition effect. Give full points only if the transitions are implemented with proper rendering techniques (e.g., using WebGL for hardware acceleration when appropriate).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the video preview functionality working correctly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether users can preview the entire video with transitions or individual transitions in isolation. The preview should accurately represent how the final video will look. Check if the preview supports: play/pause, seeking to specific points, real-time application of transition changes, and correct timing. Deduct 3 points if preview performance is noticeably slow, 5 points if transitions don't render accurately in preview, and 2 points if seeking/timeline navigation is not implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the final video generation functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code includes functionality to render and export the final video with all applied transitions. This should include proper video encoding (like H.264), maintaining original video quality, progress indicators during rendering, and options for output format and quality. Deduct 5 points if rendering is client-side only without server option for heavy processing, 3 points if video quality is significantly degraded, and 5 points if there's no export functionality at all.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as incompatible video formats, large files, browser compatibility issues, memory constraints) 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 transition recommendations 2. Template-based transition presets 3. Keyframe animation editor for custom 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 transitions (e.g., multiple fade implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive UI 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/state management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast scrubbing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-transition-effects-editor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 518,
-  "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. Develop a video transition effects editor where users can upload two video clips and choose from three common transition effects (such as cross-fade, push-pull transition, flip transition) to merge them into a complete video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload and management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code provides a complete solution for uploading, validating, and managing two video clips. Check for proper file validation (format checking, size limits), progress indicators during upload, and appropriate error handling. Score 0 if video upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or error handling, and 10 if comprehensive upload management with proper feedback is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the three transition effects (cross-fade, push-pull, flip) properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the quality and completeness of the transition effects implementation. Each effect should have customizable parameters (duration, direction if applicable) and accurate preview capability. Deduct 3 points for each missing effect. Deduct 2 points if an effect lacks parameter customization. Give full 10 points only if all three effects are implemented with proper customization options and accurate rendering.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the editor provide real-time preview functionality?",
-      "description": "Check if users can see a real-time or near-real-time preview of the transition effect before rendering the final video. The preview should accurately represent the final output, showing the actual transition at the correct timing. Deduct 5 points if preview is significantly delayed or inaccurate. Deduct 10 points if no preview functionality exists. Full score requires smooth, accurate preview with minimal latency.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the video rendering and export process complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the application can render the final video with the selected transition and provide download options in appropriate formats (MP4, WebM). Check for progress indicators during rendering, estimated time remaining, and ability to cancel the process. Deduct 5 points if rendering lacks progress feedback, 5 points if export options are limited, and 10 points if the rendering process is not implemented at all.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported video formats, interrupted uploads, 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. Additional transition effects beyond the required three 2. Audio crossfading during transitions 3. Custom keyframe support for transitions 4. Thumbnails timeline for easy navigation). 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 job) 2. Function modules unrelated to video editing (e.g., a built-in social media platform) 3. Fancy 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/UI/state management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-trimming-splicing-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 477,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable. Create a video trimming and splicing tool that allows users to upload multiple video clips, trim each video clip, then combine the trimmed video clips in a user-specified order to create a new video, and finally export the spliced video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a robust video upload system that supports multiple file formats (MP4, WebM, MOV, etc.), handles large file uploads with chunking, shows clear progress indicators, and validates video files before processing. Deduct 5 points if there's no format validation, 3 points if progress indicators are missing, and 5 points if there's no error handling for upload failures. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the video trimming functionality complete and accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the trimming interface provides frame-accurate in/out point selection, real-time preview of trimmed sections, and maintains original video quality. Check if the code handles keyframes correctly to prevent corrupt exports. Score 0 if trimming is not implemented, 5 if basic trimming exists but lacks precision or preview, and 10 if the implementation is complete with frame-accurate controls and real-time feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the video sequencing/splicing mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the code allows users to rearrange trimmed clips in a timeline, preview the sequence before final export, and maintains video and audio synchronization across splices. Check for transition handling between clips. Deduct 5 points if reordering functionality is missing, 3 points if preview before export isn't available, and 5 points if audio-video synchronization issues exist. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the video export functionality robust and complete?",
-      "description": "Assess if the export system offers quality/format options, provides clear progress indicators, handles errors gracefully, and successfully combines all clips without quality loss. The code should use efficient rendering approaches (e.g., WebAssembly for client-side or proper server rendering). Score 10 points for complete implementation with multiple export options, 5 for basic export with limited options, and 0 if export functionality is broken or missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported codecs, corrupted video files, browser compatibility issues, memory constraints, 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 smart trimming 2. Automated scene detection 3. Basic color correction/filters 4. Audio normalization across clips). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple video player implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to video trimming/splicing (e.g., a built-in image editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy 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 video processing/UI/state management layers), memory management (especially for video data), and asynchronous processing patterns. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if video processing is not handled in background threads or workers; deduct 5 points if memory leaks occur when handling multiple videos. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the video editor UI follows professional design principles: 1) Clear timeline representation with visible trim handles 2) Intuitive drag-and-drop for reordering 3) Professional scrubbing and preview controls 4) Responsive layout that works across device sizes. Deduct 3 points for confusing trimming controls, 5 points for unintuitive timeline representation, and 5 points for poor preview functionality. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the video editing experience feels responsive: 1) Timeline scrubbing is fluid without noticeable lag 2) Trim point adjustment has immediate visual feedback 3) Preview generation occurs within acceptable timeframes 4) Export progress is clearly communicated. Deduct 5 points for laggy timeline performance, 3 points for delayed feedback when trimming, and 5 points for confusing export status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-video_production/video-watermark-tool-design.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 464,
-  "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. Design a video watermark tool that allows users to upload a video, drag and drop to select a watermark image, position the watermark on the video, set its display time, and finally generate and export the watermarked video.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the video upload and processing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code supports multiple video formats (MP4, AVI, MOV, WebM) with proper format validation and file size limits. Check if video metadata extraction (duration, resolution, frame rate) is implemented correctly. Evaluate progress tracking during upload and proper error handling for corrupted files. Score 0 if basic upload is missing, 5 if only single format supported with basic validation, and 10 if comprehensive multi-format support with robust error handling is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the drag-and-drop watermark positioning system accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the drag-and-drop interface provides real-time visual feedback with accurate coordinate mapping to video frames. Evaluate if the system includes snap-to-grid functionality, boundary constraints, and precise pixel-level positioning. Review if watermark scaling and rotation controls are implemented with proper aspect ratio maintenance. Deduct 5 points if drag boundaries are not enforced, 3 points if visual feedback is laggy (>50ms delay). Full score requires smooth real-time preview with sub-pixel accuracy.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the watermark timing and display control system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the timeline interface allows precise start/end time selection with frame-accurate control. Check if the system supports multiple watermark layers with independent timing controls and z-index management. Review fade-in/fade-out effects implementation and keyframe-based animation support. Deduct 5 points if timing granularity exceeds 100ms, 3 points if timeline scrubbing is not smooth. Full score requires professional-grade timeline control with multi-layer support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the video export and rendering engine efficiently implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the rendering engine supports hardware acceleration (WebGL/WebAssembly) for efficient processing. Evaluate output quality options (resolution, bitrate, codec selection) and progress tracking during export. Review whether the system maintains original video quality while properly compositing watermarks. Deduct 5 points if export time exceeds 3x video duration for standard processing, 5 points if output quality degradation is noticeable. Full score requires optimized rendering with quality preservation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported video formats, memory overflow during processing, network interruption during upload, invalid watermark images, 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 watermarking for multiple videos 2. Animated watermarks with transparency effects 3. Template library with preset watermark styles 4. Real-time preview with playback controls). 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 handlers coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video watermarking (e.g., built-in video editing suite) 3. Fancy effects that affect processing performance (e.g., excessive real-time filters during preview). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core watermarking 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/file handling layers), memory management for large video files, and proper cleanup of temporary resources. Deduct 5 points if memory leaks are found or Web Workers are not used for heavy processing; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no progress indicators are implemented for long operations. 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 with proper contrast ratios for video editing interface 2) Proper layout spacing with clear separation between video preview, controls, and timeline 3) Professional typography with readable labels and timestamps. Deduct 3 points for each crowded control panel, 5 points for poor video-to-UI contrast that affects usability, and 5 points for chaotic timeline or control 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 professional video editing standards: 1) Drag operations provide immediate visual feedback ≤ 16ms (60fps) 2) Video preview updates maintain smooth playback without stuttering 3) Timeline scrubbing responds instantly with frame-accurate seeking 4) Export progress updates smoothly without blocking UI. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for choppy video preview during watermark positioning, and 5 points for unresponsive controls during processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Video Production",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}