@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/mermaid_flowcharts-mind_maps/vue-parse-json-xmind-display-mind-map.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 420,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create Vue code to parse JSON xmind files and display them as a mind map on a webpage.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue component structure properly organized for the mind map?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code follows Vue best practices with a clear component hierarchy separating concerns (parser, renderer, interactions). Check for proper use of props, emits and vue lifecycle hooks. Score 0 if components are missing or poorly structured, 5 if basic structure exists but has organizational issues, and 10 if components are well-designed with clear responsibilities and interfaces.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the code correctly parse the JSON xmind file format?",
-      "description": "Review whether the parser can handle the complete xmind JSON schema, including root topics, subtopics, relationships, markers, notes, and labels. Check for edge cases like empty nodes, deeply nested structures, and special characters. Deduct 3 points if only basic topic structure is parsed, 3 points if relationships are missing, and 2 points if markers or notes aren't supported. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the mind map visualization fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code properly renders the hierarchical structure with appropriate layout algorithms (radial, horizontal, vertical). Check if the visualization handles different node depths, maintains proper spacing, and avoids overlapping elements. Score 0 if visualization is broken/missing, 5 if basic rendering exists but has layout issues, and 10 if the mind map is properly displayed with a professional appearance.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are interactive features implemented for mind map manipulation?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the implementation includes essential interaction features: expand/collapse nodes, drag-and-drop positioning, zooming, and panning. Check if the code handles selecting nodes and editing content. Deduct 2 points per missing core interaction feature. Award full 10 points only if all interactions feel smooth and intuitive on different screen sizes.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as malformed JSON, missing properties, extremely large mind maps, 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 collaborative editing 2. Export to different formats (PNG, PDF) 3. Keyboard shortcuts for navigation 4. Customizable themes or node styling). 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 implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple rendering engines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to mind mapping (e.g., unrelated visualizations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow rendering). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating parsing/rendering/interaction layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if Vue composition API/options API are inconsistently mixed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error handling or logging. 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 for nodes and connections 2) Proper layout spacing between nodes and branches 3) Professional font system with good readability and hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic node arrangement or unclear hierarchical representation. 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) Node expansion/collapse animations between 200-400ms 2) Smooth transitions when navigating or rearranging 3) Clear visual feedback for selections and interactions. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for laggy performance with larger mind maps, and 5 points for confusing interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Mermaid Flowcharts-Mind Maps",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/mermaid_flowcharts-mind_maps/vue2-g6-mind-map-implementation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 361,
-  "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. Generate frontend code for implementing a mind map using Vue2 and G6.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core mind map data structure properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code defines a proper hierarchical data structure for the mind map, including nodes and edges with appropriate attributes. Check if it handles parent-child relationships, node positions, and visual properties. Give 0 points if the data structure is missing, 5 points if it's basic but functional, and 10 points if it's comprehensive with support for rich metadata.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the G6 graph initialization and configuration properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if G6 is correctly initialized with proper container, plugins, and configurations. Evaluate whether the code sets appropriate behaviors (drag, zoom, click), node/edge styles, and layout algorithms. Deduct 3 points if basic configuration is missing, 5 points if interaction modes are incomplete, and 2 points if performance optimizations are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the core mind map operations implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether essential operations are implemented: adding nodes, deleting nodes, editing node content, collapsing/expanding branches, and reorganizing the hierarchy. Score 0 if these core functions are missing, 5 if only basic operations work, and 10 if all operations are implemented with proper event handling and state management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the Vue2 integration with G6 properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the integration between Vue2 reactive system and G6 rendering. Check for proper component lifecycle management, reactive data flow, and event handling between Vue and G6. Deduct 5 points if G6 instances aren't properly disposed on component destruction, 3 points if reactivity is broken, and 3 points if Vue events don't properly trigger G6 updates. 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 data structures, operation errors, rendering failures) 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 layout optimization 2. Keyboard shortcuts for quick operations 3. Custom node themes 4. Export/import 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 three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to perform the same action) 2. Function modules unrelated to mind mapping (e.g., built-in calculators or unrelated widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down interaction). 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 graph logic/UI components/data management), component reusability, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state management is messy or Vue best practices aren't followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns between G6 rendering and Vue component logic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the mind map follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors for nodes) 2) Proper layout spacing (consistent node distances and hierarchy indentation) 3) Professional typography (readable font sizes and weights for different hierarchy levels). Deduct 3 points for each visual inconsistency, 5 points for poor color contrast, and 5 points for cluttered node arrangements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the mind map interactions feel natural: 1) Node dragging responds immediately 2) Expand/collapse animations are smooth and under 300ms 3) Zooming and panning work intuitively. Deduct 5 points for laggy node creation/deletion, 3 points for jerky animations during rearrangement, and 5 points for unresponsive editing interactions. Check if the mind map properly renders and updates even with large datasets. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Mermaid Flowcharts-Mind Maps",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/ai-audio-restoration-tool-with-waveform-comparison.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 606,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that any code you generate is executable. Please implement an AI-based audio restoration tool where users can upload audio files containing noise, distortion, or poor sound quality, and the system will automatically detect and repair these issues through algorithms. The tool should provide functions such as noise reduction, distortion repair, volume normalization, and audio quality enhancement, and allow users to adjust the repair intensity through parameters. The interface should display before-and-after waveform comparisons, allowing users to visually experience the restoration effects.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio upload and handling functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a robust mechanism for uploading audio files (supporting common formats like MP3, WAV, FLAC, OGG), proper validation of file types and sizes, and error handling for corrupt files. Check if the audio processing pipeline correctly decodes the audio for further manipulation with proper memory management. Score 0 if basic upload is missing, 5 if only basic formats are supported without validation, and 10 if comprehensive upload handling with proper error management is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "How comprehensive are the AI-based audio restoration algorithms?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of core restoration algorithms including: 1) Noise reduction (spectral gating, adaptive noise filtering), 2) Distortion repair (harmonic analysis, clipping restoration), 3) Volume normalization (RMS/LUFS standards compliance), and 4) General quality enhancement (frequency response correction, dynamic range processing). Deduct 3 points for each missing algorithm. Award full points only if implementations include proper signal processing principles with AI integration (ML models, neural networks, or advanced DSP techniques).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the parameter adjustment system user-friendly and effective?",
-      "description": "Assess whether users can adjust repair intensity through intuitive controls (sliders, knobs) for each restoration function with appropriate ranges and defaults. Check if real-time preview capability exists, parameter presets are available, and tooltips explain each parameter's function. Deduct 5 points if adjustments don't produce audible differences in output, 3 points if controls lack visual feedback, and 2 points if parameter ranges are inappropriate for their functions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "How effective is the before-and-after waveform visualization?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the quality of waveform rendering showing both original and processed audio. Check for synchronized playback indicators, zoom functionality, highlighting of modified sections, and ability to switch between waveform/spectrogram views. Waveforms should update in real-time when parameters change. Deduct 5 points if visualizations aren't accurate representations of the audio data, 3 points if comparative analysis tools are missing, and 2 points if the visualization isn't responsive to user interaction.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, extremely noisy inputs, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large files) 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-based content identification 2. Automatic detection of optimal restoration settings 3. Batch processing capabilities 4. Export with restoration history metadata). 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 audio processing algorithms 2. Function modules unrelated to audio restoration (e.g., unnecessary media playback features) 3. Computationally expensive visualizations that affect performance without adding value. 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 audio processing logic/UI/file handling layers), unit test coverage for processing algorithms, 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 or audio processing workloads aren't properly optimized. 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) Parameter adjustment feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indication of processing status during heavy computations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy audio preview during parameter changes, and 5 points for unclear indication of when processing is complete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-clip-management-tagging-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 566,
-  "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 an audio clip management and tagging tool where users can upload multiple audio clips, add tags and descriptions to each clip, and search and filter clips by tags.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a robust file upload system that supports multiple audio formats (MP3, WAV, OGG, etc.). Check for validation of file types, handling of large files (chunked uploads or progress indicators), and proper error handling during upload failures. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic single file upload exists, and 10 if it includes multiple file upload with format validation and progress tracking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the tagging system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the tagging implementation, including creating, assigning, and managing tags for audio clips. Check if it supports both predefined tags and custom user-created tags, tag categorization, and tag auto-completion suggestions. Deduct 3 points if tag creation is limited, 3 points if bulk tag operations are missing, and 2 points if there's no visual differentiation between tag types. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the search and filter functionality work effectively?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of search and filtering features. Check for text-based search across clip titles, descriptions, and tags, as well as advanced filtering options (by date, duration, format, etc.). Verify that filters can be combined and that results update dynamically. Deduct 3 points if only basic text search exists, 3 points if filter combinations aren't supported, and 2 points if search results don't update in real-time. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio playback interface well-designed?",
-      "description": "Review the audio player implementation, checking for essential controls (play/pause, volume, seek, speed control), waveform visualization, and keyboard shortcuts. Verify that it handles various audio formats and includes accessibility features. Deduct 3 points for missing waveform visualization, 2 points for incomplete playback controls, and 3 points if keyboard controls are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, network interruptions, database failures, 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 automatic tagging suggestions 2. Audio transcription for searchable text 3. Collaborative tagging system for teams). 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 audio processing libraries doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio management (e.g., a built-in image editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during audio playback). 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 audio processing/UI/data management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) 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 audio list scrolling, 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/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-echo-effect-processor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 564,
-  "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. Design an audio echo effect processor where users can upload audio files, select echo delay time and intensity, and preview the echo effect in real-time. After editing, users can export the audio file with the echo effect applied.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload and parsing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements audio file upload with support for multiple formats (MP3, WAV, FLAC, etc.), includes proper file validation and size limits, and accurately parses audio data using Web Audio API or similar technology. Check if waveform visualization is provided for uploaded audio. Score 0 if basic upload is not working, 5 if only basic upload without validation is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive file handling with format support and validation is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the echo effect processing algorithm correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the echo effect uses proper digital signal processing techniques with configurable delay time (typically 50ms-2000ms range) and intensity/feedback controls (0-100% range). Check if the implementation uses delay buffers, feedback loops, and proper mixing algorithms. Verify that the echo parameters produce audible and mathematically correct results. Deduct 5 points if delay timing is inaccurate, 3 points if intensity control doesn't work properly. Full score requires professional-grade audio processing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is real-time preview functionality implemented with low latency?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system provides real-time audio preview with applied echo effects, maintaining audio latency under 100ms for responsive user experience. Evaluate if the preview updates immediately when parameters change and includes proper audio buffer management. Verify that playback controls (play/pause/seek) work correctly with processed audio. Deduct 5 points if latency exceeds 200ms, 3 points if parameter changes don't update in real-time. Full score requires seamless real-time processing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio export functionality complete with proper encoding?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes complete audio export functionality that renders the final processed audio with echo effects applied, supports multiple output formats (WAV, MP3), and maintains original audio quality. Check if the export process handles long audio files efficiently and provides progress indication. Deduct 5 points if export quality is degraded, 3 points if only one format is supported, 5 points if no progress indication for long exports. Full score requires professional export capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, unsupported formats, memory limitations, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle audio processing errors, file size limitations, and browser audio context issues, 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 audio editing experience (e.g., 1. Visual waveform editing with echo visualization 2. Preset echo templates (hall, chamber, canyon effects) 3. Multi-tap delay with rhythm synchronization 4. Spectral analysis visualization during 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 audio processing functions (e.g., multiple echo algorithms coexisting unnecessarily) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio echo processing (e.g., built-in video player or image editor) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact audio processing performance (e.g., complex 3D visualizations during real-time processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core audio 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 audio processing/UI/file handling layers), proper Web Audio API usage patterns, and error handling architecture. Deduct 5 points if global audio context pollution is found or audio processing patterns are not properly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper audio resource cleanup is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional audio software design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional audio software principles: 1) Professional dark theme suitable for audio work 2) Clear parameter controls with proper labeling (delay time in ms, intensity in %) 3) Intuitive waveform visualization with proper scaling 4) Professional typography for technical values. Deduct 3 points for each poorly designed control element, 5 points for unprofessional color schemes that strain eyes during audio work, and 5 points for confusing parameter layouts. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the audio interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the audio interface interactions conform to professional audio software standards: 1) Parameter adjustment response time ≤ 50ms for real-time feel 2) Smooth waveform scrubbing and playback control 3) Clear visual feedback for all audio states (loading, processing, playing) 4) Proper audio fade-in/out to prevent clicks and pops. Deduct 5 points for each audio operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for audio artifacts during parameter changes, and 5 points for confusing audio state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-echo-effect-tool-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 623,
-  "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 and displayable. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code according to these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code, and ensure the project is fully executable\n2. Make sure all the code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Before providing the final output, carefully review and check all code to evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or the use of user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nImplement a front-end tool for adding echo effects to audio. Users can upload audio, set the echo intensity and delay time, add the echo effect to the audio, then listen to and save the new audio.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code properly implements file input for audio uploads with proper file type validation (accepting common audio formats like MP3, WAV, OGG). Verify if error handling exists for cases like invalid files, oversized files, or failed uploads. Score 0 if audio upload is missing, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation, and 10 if upload is fully implemented with proper validation and error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the echo effect parameters properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the implementation allows users to adjust at least two key echo parameters: delay time (milliseconds) and intensity/feedback level (percentage). Check for appropriate input controls with reasonable value ranges and step intervals. Verify if the UI includes real-time feedback as parameters change. Deduct 5 points if only one parameter is implemented, 3 points if parameters lack appropriate constraints or validation, and 2 points if there's no visual feedback during adjustment.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the audio processing functionality correctly implemented using Web Audio API?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the implementation correctly uses the Web Audio API to create the echo effect. Check for proper implementation of audio nodes (AudioContext, DelayNode, GainNode) and their connections. The echo effect should be implemented by combining delay and gain nodes in the correct configuration. Score 0 if Web Audio API isn't used at all, 5 if basic nodes are used but incorrectly connected, and 10 if the audio graph is correctly implemented for a true echo effect.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio playback and preview functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Verify if users can play both the original and processed audio. Check for basic playback controls (play/pause at minimum), audio visualization, and the ability to compare original vs processed audio. Deduct 5 points if there's no way to compare before/after results, 3 points if playback controls are incomplete, and 2 points if there's no visual indicator of playback status or progress.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported audio formats, browser compatibility issues, memory management for large audio files, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time audio visualization 2. Multiple echo preset configurations 3. Batch processing 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 audio processing libraries used together) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio processing (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the interface). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing logic/UI/file handling layers), error handling coverage, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for browser memory management when dealing with audio buffers. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Immediate feedback when applying echo effects 2) Smooth transitions when switching between original and processed audio 3) Clear visual indication during audio processing. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy performance during audio processing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-format-conversion-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 538,
-  "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 for demonstration purposes. Implement an audio format conversion tool that allows users to upload audio files and select a target audio format (such as mp3, wav, ogg). After conversion is complete, the user should be able to download the file in the target format.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload and format detection functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements secure file upload with proper validation, supports multiple audio formats (mp3, wav, ogg, flac, aac), includes file size limits, MIME type verification, and audio metadata extraction. Score 0 if basic upload is missing, 5 if only simple upload without validation, and 10 if comprehensive upload with security checks and format detection is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the audio format conversion engine properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the conversion system uses appropriate audio processing libraries (FFmpeg, Web Audio API, or similar), supports bidirectional conversion between major formats, maintains audio quality settings, and handles sample rate/bitrate adjustments. Deduct 5 points if conversion quality is poor, 3 points if limited format support. Full score requires robust conversion with quality preservation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is real-time conversion progress tracking and status management implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides real-time conversion progress updates, estimated time remaining, proper status indicators (queued/processing/completed/failed), and handles concurrent conversion requests efficiently. Deduct 5 points if no progress indication, 3 points if status updates are inaccurate or delayed. Requires seamless user feedback throughout the process.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the converted file download and management system complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes secure file download mechanisms, temporary file cleanup, download history tracking, and proper file naming conventions. Must handle large file downloads with resume capability and automatic cleanup of expired conversions. Deduct 5 points if no cleanup mechanism, 3 points if download security is compromised. Full implementation requires complete file lifecycle management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted audio files, unsupported formats, network interruption, conversion failures, 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. Audio preview before/after conversion 2. Batch conversion capabilities 3. Audio quality comparison tools 4. Format recommendation based on use case 5. Cloud storage integration). 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 coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio conversion (e.g., built-in video editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during conversion). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating upload/conversion/download layers), unit test coverage, error handling, 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) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for upload/convert/download workflow. 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 upload feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Conversion progress updates every 500ms or less 3) Smooth transition animations between states (300-500ms duration) 4) Clear visual focus guidance through the conversion workflow 5) Responsive drag-and-drop interactions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during file operations, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-mixing-effect-tool-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 635,
-  "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. \n\n======== Role ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are given a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code according to this requirement. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand language comments. Do not output anything else.\n\n======== Output Rules ========\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code. Please ensure the project is complete and executable.\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code.\n3. Before the final output, carefully review and check all code to evaluate its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated.\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or require user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data.\n\n======== Project Requirements ========\nCreate a frontend tool for audio mixing and audio effect combination, where users can upload multiple audio files for mixing, and can add various audio effects (such as echo, noise reduction, etc.) to the mixed audio. After processing, users can preview and download the final audio.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload and management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete audio file upload system, including multiple file selection, file type validation (audio formats like MP3, WAV, OGG), file size limits, upload progress indication, and proper error handling. Check if users can manage (add/remove/reorder) uploaded audio files. Score 0 if audio upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks validation or management features, and 10 if fully implemented with all necessary features and error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the audio mixing functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of audio mixing capabilities using the Web Audio API or similar technologies. Check whether the code includes volume adjustment for each track, timing synchronization options, mute/solo options for individual tracks, and proper gain node management. Verify that the mixing process preserves audio quality without unintended clipping or distortion. Score 0 if mixing is not implemented, 5 if basic mixing exists but lacks fine-tuning options, and 10 if comprehensive mixing with all professional features is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are audio effects properly implemented and customizable?",
-      "description": "Assess the range and quality of audio effects implemented (echo, reverb, noise reduction, compression, EQ, etc.). Check if each effect has appropriate parameters that users can adjust. Verify that effects can be applied selectively to individual tracks or to the master output. Effects should be implemented using proper audio processing nodes with real-time preview capabilities. Score 0 if no effects are implemented, 5 if only basic effects with limited customization, and 10 if a comprehensive suite of professional-grade effects with full parameter customization is available.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio preview and download functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the application provides real-time preview of the mixed audio with applied effects before downloading. Evaluate the download functionality, including proper file format options (MP3, WAV, etc.), quality settings, metadata preservation, and appropriate file naming. Verify that the final download accurately represents what was heard in the preview. Score 0 if preview/download is missing, 5 if basic functionality exists but lacks options or accuracy, and 10 if fully implemented with professional quality and options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as incompatible audio formats, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large audio files, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper exception handling around audio processing operations, which are prone to errors. 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. Audio waveform visualization 2. Spectral frequency analysis display 3. Template presets for common audio combinations 4. AI-assisted mixing suggestions). 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 audio processing functions 2. Function modules unrelated to audio mixing (e.g., a built-in video player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact audio processing performance). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core audio processing 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 audio processing logic/UI/state management layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper use of Web Audio API best practices, memory management with large audio files, and worker threads for intensive processing. 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 audio tool design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional audio tool design principles: 1) Appropriate color schemes that reduce eye strain during long sessions (dark theme options) 2) Proper layout of controls with logical grouping (effects, track management, master controls) 3) Professional visualization components (accurate waveforms, level meters with proper dB scales). Deduct 3 points for each poorly placed control group, 5 points for inaccurate audio visualizations, and 5 points for unintuitive workflow design. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive for audio operations?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the audio processing operations meet real-time requirements: 1) Effect parameter changes reflected in audio within 100ms 2) Audio transport controls (play, pause, seek) respond immediately 3) Smooth waveform scrolling during playback. Additionally, check if audio processing is handled in a separate thread to prevent UI freezing during intensive operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation with noticeable lag, 3 points for audible glitches during parameter changes, and 5 points for UI freezing during processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}