@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-file_management/html-file-excel-word-viewer-converter.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 365,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible. Help me write an HTML file that can use plugins to read and display specific Excel and Word files from the same directory, and convert other file formats to TXT format for display on the webpage.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload and selection mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code provides a clear interface for users to select Excel, Word, and other files from the local system. Verify that the file input allows appropriate MIME types (.xlsx, .docx, etc.) and provides visual feedback on selection. Award 10 points for a complete implementation with validation and error handling, 5 points for basic functionality without proper validation, and 0 if missing entirely.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is Excel file reading and display functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code uses appropriate libraries (like SheetJS/xlsx, ExcelJS) to parse and display Excel files. Check if the implementation handles different sheet structures and includes features like sheet navigation, cell formatting, and formulas display. Award 10 points for comprehensive Excel handling with formatted display, 5 points for basic table rendering, and 0 if Excel reading is not implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is Word file reading and display functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code effectively uses libraries (like Mammoth, docx.js) to parse and render Word documents with proper formatting. Check if the implementation preserves text formatting, images, tables, and document structure. Award 10 points for comprehensive rendering with styles preserved, 5 points if only plain text is extracted, and 0 if Word reading is not implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the file format conversion to TXT properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of conversion functionality for other file formats to TXT. Check if the code handles different input formats (PDF, RTF, etc.) and properly extracts text content. Verify error handling for unsupported formats and conversion failures. Award 10 points for robust multi-format conversion, 5 points for limited format support, and 0 if conversion is not implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupt files, large files, unsupported formats, 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. Search functionality within displayed documents 2. Ability to edit and save changes 3. Side-by-side comparison of different files). 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 file parsing functions 2. Function modules unrelated to file display (e.g., unnecessary analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during file loading). 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 file handling logic from UI components), error handling, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if external libraries are not properly managed with fallbacks. 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) File loading progress indicators 2) Smooth transitions when switching between file types 3) Clear visual cues for interactive elements. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for noticeable delays during file processing without appropriate loading states, and 5 points for confusing navigation between different file views. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/html-file-list-download.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1216,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable. Write HTML code that displays a file list where users can click to download files.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the HTML structure semantically correct and accessible?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code uses proper semantic HTML elements (<ul>, <li> for lists, <a> for download links) and includes accessibility attributes (aria-* attributes, proper alt text for icons). Score 0 if basic HTML structure is missing, 5 if semantic structure exists but lacks accessibility features, 10 if fully semantic and accessible.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file download functionality correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the download links use the 'download' attribute and 'href' pointing to actual files or implement programmatic download via JavaScript. Check if the code handles different file types appropriately. Score 0 if download functionality is missing, 5 if basic download links exist but lack proper attributes or error handling, 10 if fully implemented with proper attributes and error states.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the file list display relevant file metadata?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the file list shows important metadata (file size, type, modification date, etc.). Score 0 if no metadata is displayed, 5 if only basic filename is shown, 10 if comprehensive metadata is displayed in a well-organized format.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there visual feedback for download actions?",
-      "description": "Check if the interface provides visual indicators for download initiation, progress, and completion (hover effects, loading indicators, success/error notifications). Score 0 if no feedback exists, 5 if basic feedback is implemented but lacks comprehensiveness, 10 if complete visual feedback system is in place.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles edge cases (empty file lists, broken links, large files, unsupported file types) and provides fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should handle these situations gracefully with appropriate error messages. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average handling of errors, 0 points if no error handling exists.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check for additional useful features beyond basic requirements (e.g., 1. File preview before download 2. Sorting/filtering options 3. Batch download functionality). 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 for redundancies: 1. Unnecessary scripts or libraries for a simple feature 2. Duplicate download mechanisms 3. Excessive styling unrelated to core functionality. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review code organization (separation of HTML, CSS, JavaScript), naming conventions, and performance considerations. Deduct 5 points for inline styles/scripts when they should be separate; deduct 3 points for poor naming conventions; deduct 2 points for unoptimized resources that could impact performance. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate visual design: 1) Consistent spacing and alignment of list items 2) Appropriate use of color to indicate file types or statuses 3) Proper typography with adequate text contrast and hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent spacing, 3 points for poor color choices affecting readability, 4 points for inadequate text contrast. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge interaction quality: 1) Clear hover/active states for download links 2) Immediate visual feedback on click 3) Responsive design that adapts to different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for missing hover states, 3 points for lack of click feedback, 4 points if the design breaks on mobile or smaller viewports. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/html-user-center-mp3-upload-submissions.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 829,
-  "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. Create an HTML interface for a User Center.\n\nThe purpose of this User Center is to provide an interface for users to upload MP3 files, and it should have the following options: File Submission, My Submissions",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file selection, validation for MP3 format, progress indication during upload, and proper error handling. Score 0 if the core upload functionality is not implemented, 5 if only basic file selection exists without validation, and 10 if it includes format validation, progress tracking, and appropriate error messages.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the My Submissions section properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a complete system to display previously uploaded MP3 files with relevant metadata (upload date, file size, duration if extracted). Check if pagination or infinite scrolling is implemented for large lists. Deduct 5 points if there's no way to view file details, and 3 points if sorting/filtering options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there proper user authentication and session management?",
-      "description": "Check whether the User Center includes login/registration functionality, session persistence, and secure authentication practices. Assess if uploaded files are properly associated with the logged-in user account. Deduct 5 points if there's no authentication, 3 points if authentication exists but without proper session management, and 5 points if there's no way to associate uploads with specific users. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the interface include audio playback functionality for uploaded MP3 files?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether users can preview/play their uploaded MP3 files directly in the interface. Check for essential audio controls (play/pause, volume, seek), and metadata display during playback. Deduct 5 points if basic playback is missing, 3 points if advanced controls are absent, and 2 points if there's no visual feedback during playback. 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 upload failures, oversized files, unsupported formats, network interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Drag-and-drop upload capability 2. Audio waveform visualization 3. Automatic metadata extraction from MP3 files). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload methods with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to MP3 management (e.g., unrelated media players) 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 UI components/file handling logic/authentication), proper error handling patterns, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns between different functional parts. 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 feedback for upload processes. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between interface states, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/implement-drag-and-drop-file-upload-vue-3.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 459,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Implement drag and drop file upload in Vue 3.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the drag and drop file upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core drag and drop API (using HTML5 dragenter, dragover, dragleave, drop events). Check if it prevents default browser behavior for drag events and handles file objects correctly from the DataTransfer object. Score 0 if drag events are not implemented, 5 if only basic file dropping works without visual feedback, and 10 if it handles all drag states properly with appropriate event propagation control.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Vue 3 Composition API utilized effectively?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation leverages Vue 3's Composition API (ref, reactive, computed, watch, lifecycle hooks) properly rather than just using Options API. Check for proper reactivity handling for the file state and upload progress. Deduct 5 points if Vue 3 specific features are not utilized, 3 points if reactive state management is inconsistent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the file upload implementation include proper validation and feedback?",
-      "description": "Check if the code validates file types, file sizes, and provides clear feedback on validation failures. Assess whether progress indicators are implemented for upload operations. Deduct 5 points if there's no file validation, 3 points if validation exists but without user feedback, and 2 points if progress tracking is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there proper error handling and resilience in the upload process?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation handles network errors, server rejections, and file processing issues gracefully. Check for retry mechanisms, informative error messages, and state recovery. Deduct 5 points if error handling is absent, 3 points if errors are caught but not communicated to users effectively. 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 file types, extremely large files, network interruption, browser compatibility issues). Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Image preview for image files 2. Directory/folder upload support 3. Chunked file uploading for large files). 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 upload handlers) 2. Function modules unrelated to file upload (e.g., complex animation systems) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary DOM manipulations during upload). 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 logic/UI components/API services), reusability of components, and proper TypeScript usage if applicable. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's poor separation of concerns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload area design follows modern UI principles: 1) Clear visual cues for the drop zone 2) Proper state visualization (idle, dragging over, uploading, success, error) 3) Appropriate animation and transitions. Deduct 3 points for each missing visual state, 5 points for poor contrast or readability issues, and 5 points for confusing user interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the drag and drop interactions feel natural: 1) Immediate visual feedback when files are dragged over the drop zone 2) Clear indication when files are being processed 3) Smooth transitions between upload states. Deduct 5 points for delayed feedback during dragging, 3 points for jarring state transitions, and 5 points for confusing or missing upload status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/market-research-report-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 543,
-  "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. Design a market research report management system where market researchers can upload research report files (PDF, PPT formats) and add research location and time to the reports. Market department managers (username: marketmgr, password: marketpass) can log into the system, view all research reports, filter by location or time, and share reports with other departments.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload and report metadata management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes a complete file upload mechanism that supports PDF and PPT formats, along with metadata collection for research location and time. Score 0 if file upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but without proper validation or metadata handling, and 10 if the implementation includes file type validation, size limits, progress indicators, and proper metadata association.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the authentication and authorization system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the system implements secure authentication for the market manager (username: marketmgr, password: marketpass) with appropriate session management and CSRF protection. Evaluate if role-based access control is implemented to differentiate between researchers and managers. Deduct 5 points if passwords are stored in plaintext, 3 points if session management is insecure, and 3 points if there's no protection against brute force attacks. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the report filtering and search capabilities implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the filtering system by location and time, looking for features like multi-criteria search, date range selection, and geographic hierarchies. Score 0 if filtering is absent, 5 if only basic filtering is available without advanced options, and 10 if the implementation includes real-time filtering with efficient database queries, advanced filter combinations, and search history functionality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the report sharing mechanism secure and functional?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the sharing functionality allows managers to share reports with other departments selectively, with options for setting permissions or expiration dates. Check if the system generates secure sharing links or implements department-level permissions. Deduct 5 points if sharing lacks access controls, 3 points if no audit trail exists for shared reports, and 3 points if there's no way to revoke access. 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 failed uploads, invalid file formats, network interruptions, database connection 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. Automatic report summarization 2. Visual analytics dashboard for research trends 3. Integration with notification systems for new reports). 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 market research management (e.g., a built-in social media feed) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the dashboard). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/service/controller layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/mini-program-photo-upload-cloud.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 743,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please develop a mini-program that allows users to select photos from an album and upload them to a cloud platform. Provide all files, including cloud functions, along with detailed code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the local photo selection function fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements photo selection from the album, including handling permissions, supporting multiple photo selection, and providing image previews. Check if there are file type and size validations, and if users can deselect/reselect photos. Score 0 if selection functionality is missing, 5 if basic selection works but lacks validations, and 10 if all features including preview and validation are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the cloud upload functionality correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of cloud upload mechanisms, including proper authentication, progress indicators, retry mechanisms for failed uploads, and handling of various network conditions. Check if there's proper error handling for server-side rejections. Deduct 5 points if upload progress isn't shown, 3 points if there's no retry mechanism, and 2 points if network transitions aren't handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the cloud functions properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if cloud functions include proper authentication mechanisms, validation of uploaded content, secure storage implementation, and appropriate response handling. Verify if there are security measures against unauthorized access and proper logging. Deduct 5 points for missing authentication, 3 points for insufficient validation, and 2 points for poor error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there appropriate file/image processing implementation?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes image optimization before upload (compression, resizing), support for various image formats, and appropriate metadata handling. Check if there are options for quality selection and if EXIF data is properly preserved or stripped as needed. Deduct 5 points for no image optimization, 3 points for limited format support, and 2 points for poor metadata handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as permission denials, corrupt files, network interruption, server 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. AI-powered image categorization 2. Automatic album creation based on content 3. Social sharing integration 4. Background upload capability). 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 upload mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to photo uploading (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during upload). 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/upload logic/cloud service 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) Upload button feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback during upload process. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jumpy animations during selection/upload, and 5 points for confusing upload status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/mobile-photo-cloud-upload-download.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1257,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Photo upload and download: Users can upload photos from their mobile album to the cloud, supporting batch upload, download, and original image saving. Generate the complete process for this functionality.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the photo upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete photo upload system, including file selection interface, MIME type validation, and progress tracking. Score 0 if the core upload logic is missing, 5 if basic upload is implemented without validation, and 10 if it includes file type checking, size limits (typically 10-20MB per image), and proper error handling for failed uploads.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is batch uploading properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the batch upload implementation, checking for concurrent upload management, individual file status tracking, and aggregate progress reporting. Deduct 3 points if there's no cancel option for in-progress uploads, 4 points if there's no parallel upload optimization, and 5 points if the code doesn't handle partial batch failures gracefully. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the cloud storage and download mechanism properly designed?",
-      "description": "Check if secure download links are generated, proper authentication is implemented for protected resources, and whether original image quality is preserved. Deduct 5 points if no content delivery optimization is included (like CDN integration), 3 points if download resumption isn't supported, and 5 points if there's no mechanism to handle expired download links. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is mobile device integration properly handled?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code properly integrates with mobile device APIs for accessing photo albums, requesting appropriate permissions, and handling device-specific behaviors (iOS vs Android differences). Deduct 5 points if camera capture isn't supported alongside gallery selection, 5 points if permissions aren't properly requested and verified, and 3 points if device orientation and EXIF data aren't preserved. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unstable network conditions, insufficient storage space, invalid file formats, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered auto-tagging of photos 2. Automatic creation of photo albums based on time/location 3. Background upload that works even when the app is minimized). 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 picker implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to photo management (e.g., a built-in social network) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during upload/download). 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/upload logic/storage layers), unit test coverage, and error logging capabilities. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no proper logging mechanism for debugging upload/download failures. 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 for upload previews and progress indicators 3) Clear visual feedback during the upload/download process. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for confusing status indicators, and 5 points for inconsistent thumbnail presentation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Immediate feedback when photos are selected 2) Smooth progress indicators for upload/download operations 3) Intuitive gestures for photo selection and management. Deduct 5 points for laggy thumbnail generation, 3 points for jerky progress indicators, and 5 points for confusing multi-select interactions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/online-file-preview-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 596,
-  "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 purposes. Design a file preview system where users can directly preview common file formats (such as images, PDFs, text files, etc.) online after clicking on a file.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file type detection and handling system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly identifies different file types (MIME types) and applies appropriate preview handlers. Check if it supports at least images (JPG, PNG, GIF, SVG), documents (PDF, TXT, MD), and potentially videos/audio. Score 3 points for basic image preview, 7 points for including document formats, and 10 points for comprehensive MIME type detection with specialized handlers for each format.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file upload/selection mechanism user-friendly and robust?",
-      "description": "Review the code for both drag-and-drop functionality and traditional file input methods. Check for proper file size validation, progress indicators during upload, and input sanitization. Deduct 3 points if only basic file input is implemented without drag-and-drop, 2 points for missing file size checks, and 2 points for lack of upload progress indication. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the preview rendering engine properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code uses appropriate rendering techniques for different file types (canvas for images, PDF.js for PDFs, syntax highlighting for code files, etc.). Deduct 5 points if only native browser capabilities are used without specialized rendering, and 3 points if the rendering doesn't handle edge cases like large files or malformed content. Award 10 points for a comprehensive rendering system with format-specific optimizations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is a caching mechanism implemented for improved performance?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements file caching strategies to avoid redundant processing of previously viewed files. Look for client-side storage utilization (IndexedDB, localStorage) and proper cache invalidation mechanisms. Award 5 points for basic browser caching, 8 points for implementing custom client-side cache, and 10 points for an intelligent caching system that considers file size and frequency of access.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupt files, unsupported formats, loading failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. File content searching within previews 2. Annotation capabilities on documents/images 3. Side-by-side comparison of multiple files). 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 preview functions 2. Function modules unrelated to file previewing 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations when switching between files). 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 file handling/UI/rendering logic), error handling practices, and code reusability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if error handling is insufficient or inconsistent. 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 for the preview area and controls 3) Professional font system for metadata and UI elements. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor preview container responsiveness. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the file preview interaction conforms to user expectations: 1) Preview loads within 500ms for standard files 2) Smooth transitions between different file previews 3) Intuitive zoom, scroll, and navigation controls for documents and images. Deduct 5 points for previews that take >2 seconds to load without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between file types, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}