@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-pitch-shifter-with-preview-export.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 678,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable and demonstrable.\n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You are provided with a software development requirement description and asked to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easily understood comments. Don't output anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete and runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot execute or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or using user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDesign an audio pitch shifter where users can upload audio files, select pitch shift options (such as raising by an octave, lowering by an octave, etc.), and preview the pitch shift effect in real-time. After editing is complete, users can export the pitch-shifted audio file.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes proper file input handling for audio files (mp3, wav, etc.), validation of file types, error handling for corrupted files, and feedback during upload process. The implementation should handle different audio formats and include proper UI feedback during the upload process.0 points if no upload functionality exists, 5 points for basic file selection without validation, 10 points for complete implementation with file type validation, progress indicators, and error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the pitch shifting core algorithm correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the pitch shifting algorithm preserves audio quality while changing pitch. Check for implementation of time-domain or frequency-domain processing (such as phase vocoder, PSOLA, or similar algorithms). The implementation should handle various pitch shifts without introducing significant artifacts.0 points if no pitch shifting is implemented, 5 points for basic implementation with noticeable quality loss, 10 points for professional-grade algorithm with minimal artifacts even at extreme pitch shifts.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the pitch shift options comprehensive and user-friendly?",
-      "description": "Review the range of available pitch shift options (octave up/down, semitone adjustments, custom ratio). Check if the UI includes intuitive controls like sliders or preset buttons for common shifts. Options should be presented in musical terminology where appropriate.0 points if only fixed options exist, 5 points for basic semitone/octave controls, 10 points for comprehensive options with both musical intervals and precise numeric values with visual feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is real-time preview functionality implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Check whether users can preview the pitch-shifted audio in real-time, with minimal latency between adjustment and playback. Verify if preview includes waveform visualization that updates with pitch changes. The system should have buffer management to ensure smooth playback.0 points if no preview exists, 5 points for basic preview with noticeable delay, 10 points for immediate responsive preview with visual waveform changes and proper playhead tracking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles edge cases such as very large files, unsupported formats, browser compatibility issues, and memory management during processing. Error handling should be comprehensive with user-friendly messages.0 points if no exception handling exists, 5 points for basic error catching, 10 points for comprehensive error prevention, detection, and recovery with helpful user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check for additional useful features beyond basic requirements (e.g., formant preservation, multi-track support, batch processing, harmonization effects, or real-time spectral visualization).Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check for unnecessary code complexities, duplicate audio processing routines, or flashy UI elements that impair performance without adding value to the core pitch shifting functionality.Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review the separation of concerns (audio processing logic, UI components, file operations), proper use of Web Audio API, memory management for large audio files, and browser compatibility considerations.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.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the audio editor interface for clarity, accessibility, and professional appearance. Check for appropriate visualization of audio (waveforms, spectrograms) that update with pitch changes, consistent control styling, and proper spacing of UI elements.Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic audio control layout.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the pitch adjustment controls respond immediately, if audio playback starts/stops without delay, and if the export process provides appropriate progress indication. Check for smooth waveform scrolling during playback and responsive UI even during processing.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for audio glitches during adjustment, and 5 points for export functionality that freezes the UI.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-recording-basic-editing.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 675,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Develop a frontend project for audio recording and basic editing, where users can use the browser's recording function to record audio, perform simple editing operations such as trimming and adding sound effects after recording, and finally save and download the edited audio.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio recording functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements the MediaRecorder API with appropriate error handling. Check for microphone access permission management, recording state indicators, and audio format support (WAV/MP3). Score 0 if recording functionality is missing, 5 if basic recording works but lacks proper state management, and 10 if recording handles all edge cases including permission denial and device switching.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the basic audio editing features implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of core editing features: trimming/cutting functionality, volume adjustment, and basic sound effects (e.g., echo, reverb). Verify that the Web Audio API is properly utilized with appropriate visualizations of edits. Score 3 points for each well-implemented editing feature. Deduct points if the implementation is buggy or has poor UX (e.g., difficult to identify trim points or unclear effect application).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the audio visualization component properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if waveform visualization is implemented using Canvas/WebGL or SVG with proper time scaling. Verify that the visualization updates in real-time during recording and accurately reflects editing operations. Assess responsiveness for different audio durations. Score 0 if visualization is missing, 5 if basic static visualization exists, and 10 if the visualization is interactive, allowing selection of audio segments and showing editing effects.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio saving and downloading functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Review the export functionality for different audio formats (at minimum WAV/MP3), proper file naming, metadata handling, and download implementation using Blob objects and download attributes. Verify the exported file quality and check if the implementation handles large files appropriately. Score 0 if export is missing, 5 if basic export works with limitations, and 10 if export handles multiple formats with proper metadata.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser compatibility issues, microphone disconnection during recording, aborted downloads, memory constraints with large files, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Noise reduction capabilities 2. Voice-to-text transcription 3. Audio filters with preview 4. Multi-track mixing 5. Keyboard shortcuts for editing). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple audio processing pipelines) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio recording/editing (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Performance-heavy features that affect core functionality (e.g., excessive visual effects). 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 components/storage handling), error handling strategies, memory management (especially for large audio files), and code organization. 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 no performance optimization strategies are implemented for audio processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern audio app design principles: 1) Clear recording controls with proper state indication 2) Intuitive editing interface with visual feedback 3) Consistent spacing and alignment of controls 4) Professional color scheme for audio visualizations. Deduct 3 points for confusing recording state indicators, 5 points for cluttered editing controls, and 5 points for poor contrast that affects usability. 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 audio editing expectations: 1) Immediate feedback when recording starts/stops 2) Smooth waveform scrolling during long recordings 3) Responsive editing operations with visual confirmation 4) Progress indicators for processing operations. Deduct 5 points for laggy waveform rendering, 3 points for delayed response to editing actions, and 5 points for missing progress indicators during audio processing operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-segmentation-labeling-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 615,
-  "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. Design an audio segmentation labeling tool where users can upload audio, add labels to different time segments, and export a file containing the time segment information.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio upload and playback system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements audio file upload functionality through HTML5 File API, supports multiple audio formats (MP3, WAV, OGG), and includes proper audio playback controls with accurate time tracking. Score 0 if basic audio handling is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload/play is working, and 10 if full audio manipulation with precise timeline control is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the time segment labeling functionality correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the interface allows users to select time ranges on the audio timeline, create labels for segments, edit existing labels, and delete unwanted segments. The implementation should include visual feedback for segment selection and proper validation of time boundaries. Deduct 5 points if segment overlap handling is missing, and 3 points if label editing functionality is incomplete. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the timeline visualization and interaction design professional?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the audio timeline uses proper waveform visualization or time ruler display, allows precise time selection through mouse/touch interactions, and provides zoom in/out functionality for detailed editing. Visual indicators should clearly show current playback position, selected segments, and labeled regions. Deduct 5 points if waveform rendering is missing or poorly implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the export functionality complete with proper data structure?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete export functionality that generates files containing segment information (start time, end time, labels) in standard formats (JSON, CSV, or XML). The export should include metadata like audio filename, total duration, and creation timestamp. Deduct 5 points if data validation before export is missing, and 3 points if multiple export formats are not supported. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper data integrity checks.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported audio formats, corrupted files, invalid time ranges, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Automatic silence detection for segment suggestions 2. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient labeling 3. Real-time waveform analysis 4. Batch labeling operations 5. Audio speed adjustment for detailed review). 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 loading mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio labeling (e.g., built-in audio effects or filters) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex 3D 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 audio processing/UI/data export layers), error handling coverage, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if proper separation of concerns 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 with clear visual hierarchy 2) Proper layout spacing with adequate whitespace 3) Professional typography with readable font sizes (≥ 14px) 4) Intuitive iconography for audio controls. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor contrast ratios affecting readability, and 5 points for inconsistent visual styling. 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) Audio playback response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Timeline scrubbing is smooth without audio glitches 3) Segment selection provides immediate visual feedback 4) Hover states and active states are clearly indicated. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for audio playback stuttering during timeline manipulation, and 5 points for unclear interactive elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-trimming-labeling-frontend-program.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 470,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code when possible. Develop a frontend program for audio trimming and labeling, where users can upload audio, trim specific time segments, add text labels to the trimmed audio, and finally save the audio file with the label information.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio uploading and playback functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete audio file upload mechanism with format validation (.mp3, .wav, etc.) and proper error handling for unsupported formats. Verify that the audio playback controls include play/pause, volume control, and a working progress display. Score 0 if audio upload/playback is missing, 5 if basic functionality works but lacks format validation or error handling, and 10 if fully implemented with comprehensive format support and robust error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the audio trimming functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the trimming interface allows precise selection of start and end points with visual feedback (e.g., highlighted regions, time markers). Check if the waveform visualization is implemented to aid in precise trimming. Score 0 if trimming functionality is absent, 5 if basic trimming works but lacks precision controls or visual feedback, and 10 if the implementation includes fine-grained time controls (at least millisecond precision) with visual waveform representation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the audio labeling system comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a labeling system that allows adding, editing, and deleting text labels for trimmed segments. Check if labels are properly associated with specific time ranges and if multiple labels can be added to different segments. Score 0 if labeling functionality is missing, 5 if basic labeling exists but lacks editing capabilities or proper time association, and 10 if the implementation includes a complete label management system with metadata support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the saving and exporting functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code provides functionality to save trimmed audio segments along with their associated labels. Check if the export format preserves both audio quality and label information (e.g., JSON metadata, embedded ID3 tags for MP3). Score 0 if export functionality is missing, 5 if basic export works but doesn't preserve labels properly, and 10 if the implementation includes multiple export options with preserved metadata and batch export capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupt audio files, 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-assisted auto-labeling 2. Voice-to-text transcription integration 3. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient editing 4. Label categorization with color coding). 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 loaded) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio editing (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 components/data management), 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) Audio processing operations respond within 200ms 2) Waveform rendering is smooth even with longer audio files 3) Clear visual feedback when applying labels or trimming operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy waveform displays during scrolling/zooming, and 5 points for unintuitive label interaction. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-trimming-tagging-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 595,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Implement a front-end page for audio trimming and tagging, where users can upload audio files, perform trimming operations, add tags to the trimmed audio segments, preview and download audio with tag information.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete audio file upload mechanism that supports common audio formats (MP3, WAV, AAC, etc.), validates file sizes (limiting to reasonable sizes like 50MB), and provides proper user feedback during the upload process. Deduct 5 points if format validation is missing, 3 points if error handling for corrupt files is absent, and 2 points if upload progress indication is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the audio waveform visualization and playback system fully functional?",
-      "description": "Check if the code properly renders an interactive audio waveform visualization using Canvas/WebAudio API that accurately represents the audio data, allows for playback control (play/pause/stop), and includes visual indicators for the current playback position. Score 0 if visualization is missing, 5 points if basic waveform is displayed without interactive features, and 10 points if the visualization is fully interactive with accurate representation of the audio amplitude.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the audio trimming functionality complete and accurate?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the trimming interface allows precise selection of start and end points with visual markers/handles, provides real-time preview of the selected segment, and includes zooming capabilities for fine-grained control. Deduct 5 points if trimming is imprecise (lacking millisecond accuracy), 3 points if zooming functionality is missing, and 2 points if visual indicators for trim points are unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the tagging system comprehensive and user-friendly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the tagging system allows users to add, edit, and delete tags for audio segments with proper metadata (tag name, timestamp, descriptions), supports categorization of tags, and provides a visual representation of tags on the waveform timeline. Deduct 3 points if tag editing is limited, 4 points if visual representation on the timeline is missing, and 3 points if tag search/filtering capabilities 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 audio formats, browser compatibility issues, memory limitations with large files, network interruptions during upload/download) 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. Voice activity detection for automatic segment identification 3. Keyboard shortcuts for efficient editing 4. Audio effects/filters for enhanced playback). 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 for the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio editing (e.g., excessive social sharing options) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the audio processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing logic/UI components/state management), 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) Audio scrubbing responds within 100ms 2) Waveform zooming/panning animations are fluid (60fps) 3) Clear visual feedback when adding/editing tags. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy waveform rendering during interaction, and 5 points if important audio controls are difficult to locate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/audio-watermark-creator.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 609,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. ======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I am providing you with a software development requirement description and asking you to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and understandable comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, without omitting any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot run or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDesign a frontend audio watermark creator where users can upload audio files and watermark audio files (or text watermark information). The interface should provide options for watermark placement (beginning, middle, end, etc.) and volume adjustment. After setting these options, users should be able to save the watermarked audio to their local device.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload and processing system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements audio file upload functionality through HTML/JavaScript, including file format validation (MP3, WAV, etc.), file size limits, and proper audio parsing using Web Audio API. Check if audio visualization (waveform display) is provided for user feedback. Score 0 if basic upload is not implemented, 5 if only basic file handling exists without audio processing, and 10 if complete audio upload with validation and visualization is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the watermark insertion functionality comprehensively implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code supports both audio watermark and text-to-speech watermark insertion. Check if multiple placement options (beginning, middle, end, custom position) are available with precise timing controls. Verify if volume adjustment for watermarks is implemented with real-time preview. Deduct 5 points if only one watermark type is supported, 3 points if position control is imprecise, and 2 points if volume adjustment lacks real-time feedback. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the audio processing and mixing engine properly designed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the Web Audio API implementation includes proper audio buffer management, sample rate handling, and channel mixing capabilities. Evaluate if the audio processing maintains original quality while adding watermarks. Verify if the system handles different audio formats and bit rates correctly. Deduct 5 points if audio quality degrades significantly, 3 points if mixing causes distortion, and 2 points if format compatibility issues exist. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the audio export and download functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code provides multiple export formats (MP3, WAV, etc.) with quality options. Check if the download mechanism works across different browsers and handles large file sizes efficiently. Verify if metadata preservation and file naming conventions are implemented. Deduct 5 points if only one export format is available, 3 points if download fails on large files, and 2 points if metadata is lost during export. Give 10 points if fully implemented with multiple format support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as unsupported file formats, memory overflow with large audio files, browser compatibility issues, corrupted audio data, 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 waveform visualization during editing 2. Batch watermarking for multiple files 3. Watermark fade-in/fade-out effects 4. Audio preview with A/B comparison 5. Custom watermark voice synthesis). 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 pipelines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio watermarking (e.g., built-in music player or audio editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex 3D visualizations that slow down processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core watermarking functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating audio processing/UI/file handling layers), error handling coverage, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or audio processing is not properly encapsulated; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if audio memory management is poor (memory leaks). 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 audio editing (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear audio controls grouping 3) Professional typography (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Intuitive audio timeline and waveform display. Deduct 3 points for each crowded control element, 5 points for poor contrast in waveform visualization, and 5 points for chaotic control layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the audio interface interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Audio playback controls respond within 100ms 2) Smooth waveform scrubbing and timeline navigation 3) Real-time preview of watermark placement without lag 4) Clear visual feedback for processing states (loading, processing, complete). Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive audio control, 3 points for choppy timeline interaction, and 5 points for missing processing state indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/flutter-android-call-recording-feature.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 333,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please write a call recording feature for Android phones using Flutter.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the call recording core functionality correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly handles the essential call recording functionality using Flutter plugins like phone_state/call_log and audio recording capabilities. Check if it properly detects call states (incoming, outgoing, ongoing) and triggers recording at the right moments. Score 0 if core functionality is missing, 5 if basic recording works but has gaps, and 10 if it handles all call scenarios correctly.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the necessary permissions properly requested and handled?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code correctly requests and handles all required Android permissions (READ_PHONE_STATE, RECORD_AUDIO, READ_CALL_LOG, WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE). Check for runtime permission handling with proper user prompts and graceful fallbacks when permissions are denied. Deduct 3 points for each missing permission implementation and 5 points if there's no runtime permission handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the recording storage and file management properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper file naming conventions, organized storage structure, and file management capabilities (listing, playing, deleting recordings). Check if recordings are stored with metadata (caller name/number, date, duration). Deduct 5 points if recordings aren't properly organized, and 3 points if metadata is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the call notification and background service implementation appropriate?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a foreground service for recording calls in the background with appropriate notifications. Verify if it handles various Android versions properly (especially Android 8+ with background limitations). Deduct 5 points if there's no foreground service, and 5 points if notifications are missing or improperly implemented. 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 sudden call termination, storage issues, permission changes at runtime, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Automatic call transcription 2. Voice-to-text for recorded calls 3. Caller categorization or tagging system 4. Cloud backup 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 ways to record calls) 2. Function modules unrelated to call recording (e.g., a built-in music player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 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 UI/business logic/storage layers), state management approaches, and code reusability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no unit tests are included. 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 Material Design or Cupertino 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 stuttering during animations, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Audio Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-audio_editing/frontend-audio-denoising-application.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 674,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the code you provide executable for demonstration. Develop a frontend audio denoising application where users can upload audio files containing noise, click on a denoising button to process the audio, then listen to and download the noise-reduced audio after processing is complete.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the audio file upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete audio file upload system with proper file type validation (accepting common audio formats like MP3, WAV, OGG), file size restrictions, and clear user feedback during upload. The upload component should handle errors gracefully and provide visual confirmation when files are successfully uploaded. Deduct 5 points if only certain formats are supported, 3 points if there's no size validation, and 5 points if error handling is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the audio denoising processing functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes an actual audio denoising algorithm (using Web Audio API, audio processing libraries, or WebAssembly implementations) rather than just simulating the process. Check if the implementation includes configurable denoising parameters (noise threshold, sensitivity, etc.) and provides visual feedback during processing. Score 0 if only simulated, 5 if basic algorithm without customization, and 10 if a comprehensive solution with configurable parameters is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the audio playback functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code provides comparative playback between original and processed audio, with standard audio controls (play/pause, volume, progress bar, time display). The interface should allow A/B testing between original and processed versions. Deduct 3 points if seeking functionality is missing, 3 points if volume control is absent, and 5 points if comparative listening isn't possible. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the processed audio download functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code correctly implements downloading of the processed audio file with appropriate format options (WAV, MP3, etc.), proper filename handling, and metadata preservation. The download should work across different browsers and include error handling. Deduct 3 points if only one format is supported, 5 points if metadata is stripped, and 3 points if browser compatibility issues exist. 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, corrupted audio files, processing timeouts, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time visualization of audio waveform and noise reduction 2. Multiple denoising algorithms to choose from 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 engines) 2. Function modules unrelated to audio denoising (e.g., unnecessary image editing tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down audio processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/audio processing/storage 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 feedback during audio processing. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for lack of progress indicators during 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": "medium"
-}