@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-image-tagging-classification-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 549,
-  "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. Please implement an online image tagging and classification tool where users can upload images and add custom tags and categories to each image. The tool should support multi-level classification, tag search and filtering, and provide a visual gallery displaying all categorized and tagged images.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload and processing functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete image upload system with proper file validation, size restrictions, format checking, and error handling. Verify if images are properly stored and retrieved. Score 0 if image upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or error handling, and 10 if the implementation includes comprehensive validation, preview functionality, and robust error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the tagging system fully functional?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the tagging system allows users to add, edit, and delete custom tags for images. Check if tags can be applied to multiple images and if the interface provides an intuitive way to manage tags. Deduct 3 points if tag editing is not supported, 3 points if batch tagging is missing, and 4 points if there's no tag suggestion or autocompletion feature. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the multi-level classification system implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code supports creating hierarchical categories (e.g., Nature > Landscapes > Mountains) with proper parent-child relationships. Check if images can be assigned to multiple categories at different levels. Deduct 5 points if only single-level categories are supported, 3 points if category reorganization (moving subcategories) is not possible, and 2 points if visual hierarchy indication is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the search and filtering functionality comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the tool offers advanced search capabilities including tag-based filtering, category filtering, combined filters, and sorting options. Check if the search is performant with large datasets. Score 0 if search is not implemented, 5 if only basic tag search exists, and 10 if the implementation includes real-time search, multiple filter combinations, and relevance sorting.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid image formats, network interruptions, large file uploads, 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 auto-tagging 2. Image similarity detection 3. Tag cloud visualization 4. Drag-and-drop organization). 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 (e.g., multiple ways to add the same tag) 2. Function modules unrelated to image tagging (e.g., a built-in audio player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when browsing images). 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 management/UI/image processing layers), code reusability, and build process automation. Deduct 5 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 20%); deduct 2 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 image gallery layout (consistent thumbnails, proper grid/masonry layout). Deduct 3 points for inconsistent thumbnail sizes, 4 points for poor visual hierarchy in the tagging interface, and 3 points for chaotic category display. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Image loading employs lazy loading and/or progressive rendering 2) Tag filtering produces immediate visual feedback 3) Gallery transitions are smooth when switching categories. Deduct 4 points for laggy image loading, 3 points for unresponsive filtering, and 3 points for abrupt category transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/online-personnel-excel-form-collection.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 406,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create an online personnel information collection form based on the Excel template. In the Excel sheet, items named as \"Table 1\", \"Table 2\"... are the forms that need to be collected. Items marked with an asterisk are required fields. Some questions with dropdown validation in Excel should also provide options in the collection form.\n\nThe online collection form is divided into [Server side] and [Form-filling side]. The [Server side] analyzes the uploaded Excel template to generate online collection form questions and creates a QR code for the online collection form. Employees scan the code with their phones to enter the [Form-filling side] to complete the form. After filling everything out, they click submit, and the information is automatically summarized on the [Server side]. The [Server side] displays \"* people have submitted\". After all personnel collection is completed, the [Server side] clicks to summarize and generate an Excel file containing all personnel information in the same format as the template. The [Server side] mobile phone enables a hotspot, and other people's mobile phones connect to the [Server side] phone's hotspot for network transmission. Generate this using HTML.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Excel template parsing function fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately parses Excel files through JavaScript libraries (such as SheetJS/xlsx), extracts form structures including 'Table 1', 'Table 2' naming patterns, identifies required fields marked with asterisks, and recognizes dropdown validation rules. Score 0 if template parsing is not implemented, 5 if only basic sheet reading is implemented, and 10 if all Excel features (required fields, dropdowns, table structures) are fully parsed and converted to form schema.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the QR code generation and mobile hotspot networking implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether QR code generation is implemented using libraries like qrcode.js to create scannable links for the collection form. Verify if the system provides clear instructions for mobile hotspot setup and local network communication. Deduct 5 points if QR codes don't contain proper form URLs, and 3 points if hotspot networking guidance is missing or unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the dual-interface system (Server side & Form-filling side) properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements distinct interfaces for server management and mobile form filling. Server side should display submission count, template upload, and summary generation. Form-filling side should be mobile-optimized with touch-friendly inputs. Deduct 5 points if interfaces aren't clearly separated, and 3 points if mobile responsiveness is poor. Check real-time submission counter updates. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the data collection and Excel export workflow complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete data flow: form submission → server storage → real-time counter updates → final Excel generation matching original template format. Deduct 5 points if submitted data isn't properly stored or displayed, and 3 points if Excel export doesn't maintain original formatting. Verify that the summary function generates downloadable Excel files. Give 10 points if fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted Excel files, network interruption, invalid form data, duplicate submissions, 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. Progress visualization showing completion status 2. Form field validation with real-time feedback 3. Offline form caching for poor network conditions 4. Batch template processing). 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 Excel parsing libraries coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to form collection (e.g., built-in file manager) 3. Fancy effects that affect mobile performance (e.g., heavy animations on form pages). 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 Excel parsing/form generation/data storage layers), error handling 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 no dependency management or build process is provided. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Mobile-first responsive design. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for poor mobile interface 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) Form input feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Page transitions controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for form fields 4) Touch-friendly button sizes (≥44px) for mobile. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy form interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-tap mobile interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/open-webui-visual-interface-knowledge-base.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1446,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Building an Open WebUI visual interface - knowledge base.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the knowledge base data model well-designed?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a proper data structure for the knowledge base, including entities, relationships, and attributes. Check if it supports hierarchical organization, tagging, and searching capabilities. Score 0 if no proper data model exists, 5 if basic structures are implemented but lacking advanced features, and 10 if the design includes comprehensive indexing, versioning, and taxonomy support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the WebUI component architecture properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code follows modern component-based architecture (React/Vue/Web Components). Check for proper component hierarchy, state management, and props passing. Deduct 5 points if components are tightly coupled, 3 points if there's no separation of concerns, and 2 points if reusable components are not properly abstracted. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are proper API endpoints and data fetching mechanisms implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes RESTful or GraphQL API integration for knowledge base operations (CRUD). Evaluate if proper loading states, error handling, and caching mechanisms are implemented. Look for pagination or infinite scrolling for large datasets. Deduct 3 points for missing error handling, 3 points for no loading states, and 4 points for absence of data fetching optimization. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the search and filtering functionality comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements advanced search capabilities such as full-text search, autocomplete, filters, and faceted navigation. Check for search result highlighting and relevance ranking. Score 0 if search is not implemented, 5 if only basic keyword matching exists, and 10 if advanced search with multiple filtering options and real-time suggestions is available.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, empty search results, invalid inputs, 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. Interactive visualizations of knowledge relationships 2. AI-powered content recommendations 3. Customizable dashboard views). 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 search implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to knowledge management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/view/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 scrolling, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/package-management-parcel-collection-point.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 545,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Please implement a food service menu file management system where chefs can upload new menu files (such as dish images and descriptions) through a front-end interface, and restaurant managers can review these menus. After approval, the menus will be displayed on the front-end for customers. The system should include menu category display functionality.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the front-end upload interface for chefs fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete and user-friendly file upload interface for chefs, including file selection, preview, form validation, and progress indication. Check if it handles multiple file types (images, PDFs), supports drag-and-drop functionality, and provides clear feedback on upload status. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic uploading exists but lacks validation or feedback, and 10 if the interface is comprehensive with all required features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the menu review system for managers properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the management interface that allows restaurant managers to review, approve, reject, or request changes to submitted menu items. Check if it includes notification mechanisms, review status tracking, and comment functionality. The system should display pending items clearly and provide sorting/filtering options. Deduct 5 points if approval workflows are incomplete, 3 points if notification systems are missing, and 2 points if there's no audit trail of decisions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the menu category display functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a well-structured category system for menu items (e.g., appetizers, main courses, desserts) with proper hierarchical organization. Check if it includes features like category filtering, sorting options, and responsive display across different screen sizes. Deduct 5 points if categories are fixed and not dynamically manageable, 3 points if category filtering is missing, and 4 points if the category display is not responsive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the customer-facing menu display interface properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the front-end interface that displays approved menus to customers. Check if it includes high-quality image rendering, proper information organization (prices, descriptions, ingredients, allergens), search functionality, and filtering options. The interface should be visually appealing and responsive. Deduct 3 points for missing search functionality, 4 points for poor image handling, and 5 points if the layout is not responsive. 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 file upload failures, server disconnections, unauthorized access attempts, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if input validation is thorough and if the system handles edge cases like large file uploads or concurrent modifications. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these scenarios, 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 food photography enhancement 2. Automatic nutritional information calculation 3. Seasonal menu rotation system 4. Customer preference tracking for personalized recommendations). 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 components with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to restaurant menu management (e.g., a built-in social networking feature) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down menu browsing). 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, services, API calls), code organization, error handling patterns, and build process automation. Examine if the system uses appropriate design patterns for state management and data flow. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; 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, with appropriate food-related color psychology) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography (menu items clearly hierarchical, descriptions readable). Deduct 3 points for cluttered menu layouts, 5 points for poor color combinations that don't complement food imagery, and 5 points for inconsistent typography across the application. 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) Menu loading and filtering response ≤ 300ms 2) Transition animations between menu sections controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indication of selected categories and items. Check if image loading is optimized (lazy loading, proper compression). Deduct 5 points for menu transitions that freeze the interface, 3 points for jarring animations when switching categories, and 5 points for slow image loading without placeholders. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/parcel-collection-point-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 462,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code in your demonstration. Implement a package management system for a parcel collection point where recipients can input their collection code on a front-end page to query package information (including tracking number, courier company, and collection status). Collection point staff (username: worker, password: express123) can log into the backend to add, delete and modify package information, and process collection operations.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the recipient search/query functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete package search system using collection codes. Check if the query interface is intuitive, provides real-time feedback, and includes error handling for invalid codes. Score 0 if the core search functionality is missing, 5 if basic lookup is implemented but lacks validation or proper error handling, and 10 if the implementation includes comprehensive validation, error states, and clear user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the staff authentication system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the login system for staff (username: worker, password: express123) includes proper authentication mechanisms. Check for token-based authentication, session management, password hashing, CSRF protection, and secure storage. Deduct 3 points if passwords are stored in plain text, 3 points if there's no session timeout, and 4 points if authentication can be easily bypassed. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the package CRUD functionality complete for staff?",
-      "description": "Assess whether staff can perform all required operations (Create, Read, Update, Delete) on package information. Check for form validation, proper data structure for package information (tracking number, courier company, collection status), and intuitive interfaces for each operation. Deduct 3 points for each missing operation, and 2 points if batch operations are not supported when appropriate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the package collection process workflow implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes a complete workflow for package collection, including status updates, timestamps for collection, validation of collection codes, and notification mechanisms. Check if the system maintains an audit trail of collections. Deduct 5 points if status updates aren't atomic operations, 3 points if there's no collection timestamp recording, and 2 points if there's no collection confirmation step. 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 inputs, network interruptions, concurrent operations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time package tracking integration 2. SMS/email notifications to recipients 3. QR code generation for contactless collection). 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 search packages) 2. Function modules unrelated to package management (e.g., built-in games for users waiting) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating backend/frontend, using MVC or similar patterns), 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-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/performance-evaluation-system-with-quarterly-bonuses.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 840,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. I want to create a program for performance evaluation that allows users to view evaluation criteria categories with their serial numbers and names, where evaluatees can fill in bonus items and self-assess their scores. The data should then be exported or uploaded directly to evaluators for verification and scoring. Evaluations occur quarterly, and the system should be able to display bonus items from previous quarters as needed, with automatic flagging of repeated work content that receives multiple bonuses. The system should display current quarter scores and rankings, as well as cumulative annual scores and rankings. Please recommend a suitable programming language and provide reference code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the evaluation criteria display system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the display of evaluation criteria categories with serial numbers and names. Check if the interface allows users to browse and understand the criteria structure clearly. Score 0 if the criteria display is not implemented, 5 if only basic display is implemented without proper organization, and 10 if the criteria are well-structured with intuitive navigation and visual hierarchy.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the self-assessment functionality completely implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements the self-assessment functionality for evaluatees to fill in bonus items and self-assess their scores. Check if users can easily add new bonus items, provide descriptions, and assign self-assessment scores. Deduct 3 points if the interface is not intuitive, 4 points if validation is missing for score ranges, and 5 points if there's no way to save draft assessments. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the system implement data export and submission to evaluators?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system allows for exporting assessment data and/or direct submission to evaluators. The solution should include a secure mechanism for data transfer and verification by evaluators. Deduct 5 points if only one method (export or direct upload) is implemented, 3 points if the data format is not standardized, and 5 points if there's no confirmation mechanism for successful submission. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the historical data view and duplicate bonus detection implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system properly displays bonus items from previous quarters and automatically flags repeated work content that receives multiple bonuses. Check if the historical view allows for easy comparison between quarters. Deduct 5 points if the historical view is missing, 5 points if duplicate detection is not implemented, and 3 points if the flagging mechanism isn't visually clear. 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 input data, network interruptions, concurrent user operations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle 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. Visualization of score trends over time 2. Automated recommendations for improvement based on evaluation patterns 3. Real-time comparative performance metrics with anonymized peer data). 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 scoring systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to performance evaluation (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations or visualizations). 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/logic/UI 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 data loading, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/performance-management-system-vue-java-mysql.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1628,
-  "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. Please help me create a performance management system based on Vue, which includes: ticket purchasing, pre-sales, performance type inquiries, personal ticket purchase records, and payment methods. The database uses MySQL, the backend uses Java Web, and the frontend uses the Vue framework. Please include detailed code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue frontend architecture properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements Vue's component-based architecture, uses Vue Router for navigation, Vuex for state management, and follows Vue's best practices. Check if components are properly organized, reusable, and implement proper props validation. Score 0 if Vue is not used effectively, 5 if basic Vue functionality is present but with architectural issues, and 10 if the implementation follows Vue best practices with proper component lifecycle management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the ticket purchasing flow completely implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements all steps in the ticket purchasing flow: browsing events, seat selection, reservation, checkout, and confirmation. Check if the system handles concurrent seat selection, maintains seat reservation status, and implements timeout for reserved but unpurchased tickets. Deduct 3 points if seat visualization is missing, 3 points if reservation timeout is not implemented, and 4 points if concurrent booking issues are not addressed. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are pre-sales and performance type inquiries properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the pre-sales module includes announcement functionality, countdown timers, reminder settings, and waiting list management. For performance inquiries, verify if filtering by types, dates, venues, price ranges, and search functionality are implemented. Deduct 3 points if pre-sales lack notifications, 3 points if waiting lists are not implemented, and 3 points if performance filtering is limited. 10 points if fully implemented with user-friendly interfaces.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the personal ticket management and payment system complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether personal ticket records include purchase history, active tickets, e-ticket display with QR codes, and refund/exchange capabilities. For payments, check integration with multiple payment gateways, secure transaction handling, and payment status tracking. Deduct 3 points if e-tickets lack proper display, 3 points if payment gateway integration is incomplete, and 3 points if refund processes are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures during payment, session timeouts, concurrent transactions, database connection issues) 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. Interactive seat selection with real-time availability updates 2. Virtual venue tour before purchase 3. Social sharing with personalized ticket images 4. Event recommendations based on purchase history). 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 (e.g., multiple payment processing methods that do the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to performance management (e.g., a built-in game while waiting) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations on ticket pages). 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 API services, UI components, and business logic), test coverage, and build process automation. Check if proper API abstraction layers and data models are used. Deduct 5 points if global state is misused; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if the build process is not automated; deduct 2 points if security measures for database access are inadequate. 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 suitable for an entertainment platform (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Consistent design language across all pages. 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 4) Proper loading states during API calls. Deduct 3 points for each operation without feedback, 2 points for jarring transitions between pages, 3 points for lack of loading indicators, and 3 points for confusing navigation paths. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Online Shopping",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/personal-finance-management-tool-with-budgeting-and-import.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 561,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Design a personal finance management tool where users can record daily income and expenses, set expense categories, view monthly financial statistics and trend charts. Support importing bank statement CSV files with automatic transaction categorization. Provide a budget setting feature that alerts users when certain expenses approach or exceed their budget. Data should be encrypted and stored locally.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core financial record functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements income and expense recording capabilities, with proper data structures for financial entries (date, amount, category, description). Score 0 if the core data entry mechanisms are missing, 5 if basic record creation exists but lacks editing/deletion capabilities, and 10 if CRUD operations for financial records are fully implemented with data validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the category management system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code implements customizable expense/income categories with hierarchical structures (parent/sub-categories). Check for the ability to create, edit, merge, and delete categories while preserving historical data integrity. Score 3 points for basic category creation, 7 points if category management includes data validation and prevents orphaned transactions, and 10 points if it also includes default categories and smart category suggestions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the monthly financial statistics and visualization charts properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code generates accurate financial summaries and uses appropriate chart types (pie, bar, line) for different metrics. Charts should be interactive, responsive, and include proper legends and labels. Deduct 5 points if charts lack filtering capabilities, 3 points if they're not interactive, and 3 points if they don't handle edge cases like no data or extreme values. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is CSV import functionality with automatic categorization implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code can parse different CSV formats from common banks, match transaction descriptions to appropriate categories using pattern matching or machine learning, and handle edge cases like duplicate entries or format errors. Deduct 3 points if only a single bank format is supported, 5 points if automatic categorization isn't implemented, and 5 points if there's no error handling for malformed data. 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 input data, format errors, duplicate entries, 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. Predictive analysis for future spending 2. OCR receipt scanning for automatic entry 3. Integration with financial APIs for real-time data). 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 calculate the same financial metrics) 2. Function modules unrelated to personal finance (e.g., a built-in currency converter when the app is single-currency) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in data visualizations). 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 models, business logic, visualization layers), encryption implementation for financial data, and local storage architecture. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if proper data encryption is not 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) Harmonious color matching suitable for financial data (with consistent accent colors for income/expense) 2) Proper layout spacing (financial information properly grouped with clear visual hierarchy) 3) Professional font system (numerals using monospace fonts, proper currency formatting). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic data 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) Budget alerts appear within 100ms of value change 2) Smooth transitions between different financial views 3) Clear visual feedback for financial data entry and confirmation. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between data views, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons like 'add transaction'. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}