@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-contour-depth-refractive-texture.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1361,
-  "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. Create a new code that follows this process: first let the user upload a binary image, identify the contours in the image, then estimate the depth of each layer, and fill different refractive textures for layers with different depths.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload and processing mechanism fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete image upload functionality, including file input validation (checking if it's a valid binary image), preview capability, and proper error handling for corrupted or invalid files. Check if the image is properly loaded for processing with appropriate resolution/size handling. Score 0 if image upload is not implemented, 5 if basic upload exists but with limitations, 10 if fully implemented with comprehensive error handling and preview functionality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the contour detection algorithm correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the contour detection implementation. Check if appropriate edge detection algorithms (e.g., Canny edge detector, Sobel operator) are used before contour extraction. Verify if the contours are properly identified and stored as vector paths or coordinate sets. Examine if the code handles various image conditions (high contrast, low contrast, noise). Deduct 5 points if only basic edge detection is implemented without proper contour extraction, 3 points if noise handling is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the depth estimation logic properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess the depth estimation algorithm for nested contours. Check if the code correctly identifies hierarchical relationships between contours and assigns appropriate depth values. Verify if the depth estimation accounts for contour size, position, and nesting level. The algorithm should handle complex cases like islands (contours within contours). Deduct 5 points if the depth estimation is simplistic (e.g., only counting nesting levels), 3 points if it doesn't handle special cases like disconnected contours. Score 10 if the depth estimation is comprehensive and accurate.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the refractive textures appropriately applied to different depth layers?",
-      "description": "Evaluate how refractive textures are applied based on estimated depths. Check if the code includes a variety of realistic refractive materials (e.g., glass, water, crystal) with physically plausible parameters. Verify if the texturing accounts for depth relationships between layers with appropriate visual outcomes. Deduct 5 points if only basic color filling is used instead of true refractive effects, 3 points if the refraction parameters aren't depth-dependent. Score 10 if the implementation includes advanced features like environment mapping or realistic light interaction.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as processing very large images, images with no clear contours, unexpected user inputs, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Interactive adjustment of depth perception 2. Multiple refraction styles/presets 3. Real-time preview of changes 4. Export capabilities to 3D formats). 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 image processing functions (e.g., multiple edge detection algorithms running in sequence) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core task (e.g., unnecessary image filters) 3. Computationally expensive effects that significantly slow processing without proportional quality improvement. 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/image processing/rendering layers), algorithm efficiency for large images, and memory management. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or appropriate design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the image processing pipeline isn't optimized for performance; deduct 5 points if memory leaks might occur with large images. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall UI design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color scheme that doesn't distract from the image processing results 2) Proper layout with clear separation between controls and preview area 3) Professional visualization of depth layers with appropriate legends. Deduct 3 points for cluttered controls, 5 points for poor visual representation of depth layers, and 5 points for inadequate feedback during processing steps. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactive elements provide appropriate feedback: 1) Visual indication during image processing with progress feedback 2) Smooth transitions when switching between original image, contour view, and final result 3) Interactive elements for adjusting depth estimation or refraction parameters with immediate visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for lack of processing indicators on large images, 3 points for jarring transitions between views, and 5 points for sluggish response when adjusting parameters. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-format-conversion-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 467,
-  "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.\n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I'm providing you with a software development requirement description, and you need to generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with simple and easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete, 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 be executed 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 ========\nPlease develop an image format conversion tool that supports conversion between various image formats. The tool should have the following features: support formats including JPG, PNG, WEBP, GIF, BMP, TIFF, SVG, etc.; batch conversion functionality; adjustable conversion parameters (such as quality, compression rate, size, etc.); preserve or edit metadata information; provide frame preview and editing for dynamic images (such as GIF); provide basic image optimization options; display size comparison before and after conversion; conversion history records. All processing should be completed locally in the browser without uploading to a server. The interface should be clear and concise with explicit steps for use.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image format conversion core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements conversion between all required formats (JPG, PNG, WEBP, GIF, BMP, TIFF, SVG). Check if the conversion logic handles edge cases like transparent backgrounds, color spaces, and alpha channels correctly. Score 0 if fewer than 3 formats are supported, 5 if most basic formats work but with errors, and 10 if all specified formats convert correctly with proper error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the batch conversion functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code allows users to select and convert multiple files simultaneously. Check for queue management, progress tracking, and parallel processing capabilities. The implementation should handle memory efficiently when processing large batches. Deduct 5 points if batch operations are limited to sequential processing without progress indicators, deduct 3 points if the UI becomes unresponsive during conversion, full score if batch operations are optimized with proper feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are adjustable conversion parameters implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code provides UI controls for adjusting quality, compression rate, dimensions, and other format-specific settings. Each format should have appropriate parameter options (e.g., JPEG quality slider, PNG compression level). Deduct 3 points if parameters are hardcoded, 5 points if format-specific options are missing, and give 10 points if comprehensive and intuitive parameter controls are implemented with real-time preview capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is metadata preservation and editing functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Review if the code correctly extracts, displays, preserves, and allows editing of image metadata (EXIF, IPTC, XMP). Check if critical metadata like copyright information and camera data is handled properly. Score 0 if metadata is always stripped, 5 if metadata is preserved but not editable, and 10 if the implementation provides both preservation and comprehensive editing capabilities with proper validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (malformed images, unsupported formats, browser limitations, memory constraints, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should validate input files, employ try-catch blocks, and gracefully handle WebAssembly/library failures. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation, and 0 points if errors cause the application to crash.",
-      "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 optimization suggestions 2. Drag-and-drop workflow builder for complex conversions 3. Visual difference highlighter between original and converted images). 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 image processing libraries (e.g., including both Sharp and ImageMagick wrappers) 2. Function modules unrelated to image conversion (e.g., a built-in audio player) 3. Expensive computations that don't contribute to core functionality. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of conversion logic/UI/file handling), use of appropriate design patterns, and memory management strategies. Examine if the code efficiently uses Web Workers for heavy processing to prevent UI freezing. Deduct 5 points for global state pollution or tight coupling; deduct 5 points for inefficient memory usage with large images; deduct 5 points if intensive operations aren't offloaded from the main thread. 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) Clear visual hierarchy with conversion options and preview areas 2) Consistent spacing and alignment of controls 3) Professional typography with appropriate font sizing for readability. Deduct 3 points for each crowded control panel, 5 points for poor information architecture, and 5 points for unintuitive conversion workflow. 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 visual feedback when files are selected 2) Smooth progress indicators for conversion processes 3) Responsive UI even during heavy conversion tasks. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy interactions during processing, and 5 points for unclear conversion status indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-matting-tool-with-brush-selection.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 666,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the code generated is executable for demonstration.\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 easy-to-understand comments, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. You should always generate complete, runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements include external API access or need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDevelop an image matting tool where users can select areas to keep in an image by brushing with the mouse. Areas not selected will be made transparent, and users can export images with transparent backgrounds.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic image loading and display functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code properly implements image loading from local files or URLs, and displays the image on the canvas. Verify if the canvas sizing is appropriate (adjusts to image dimensions or provides scrolling for large images), and if the image loading includes proper error handling. The code should include loading indicators and fallback mechanisms for failed loads.Score 0 if image loading is not implemented, 5 if basic loading works but lacks error handling, 10 if fully implemented with responsive sizing and comprehensive error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the brush selection tool fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the brush tool implementation, including adjustable brush size, smooth path drawing, and precise pixel selection. The brush should have configurable hardness/softness edges and provide visual feedback during operation. Check if the code uses efficient algorithms for path interpolation between mouse/touch points to ensure smooth selection even with rapid movements.Deduct 3 points if the brush size cannot be adjusted, 3 points if path interpolation is jerky or imprecise, and 4 points if there's no visual feedback during selection. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the image matting algorithm properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the matting algorithm correctly separates foreground from background based on user selections. The algorithm should handle edge detection, anti-aliasing at boundaries, and preserve semi-transparent pixels appropriately. Check whether the implementation includes refinement options for edge quality, and if it can process complex image features like hair or fuzzy edges.Score 0 if matting is not implemented, 5 if basic binary matting works but produces jagged edges, 8 if it handles semi-transparent regions adequately, and 10 if it includes edge refinement capabilities and handles complex boundaries well.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the transparent background export functionality working correctly?",
-      "description": "Check if the code provides functionality to export the matted image with a transparent background in appropriate formats (PNG with alpha channel). Verify if multiple export options are available (resolution, quality settings) and if the export process includes proper error handling. The export function should also provide a preview of the final result before saving.Deduct 5 points if PNG with transparency is not supported, 3 points if export options are limited, and 2 points if there's no preview functionality. 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 oversized images, unsupported formats, memory constraints with large canvases, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if the application implements auto-save or history tracking to prevent data loss during unexpected issues.Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Smart selection tools similar to 'magic wand', 2. Batch processing capability, 3. Background replacement options, 4. Integration with common image filters, 5. Undo/redo functionality with visual history).Add 2 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 canvas manipulation methods that do the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to image matting (e.g., a built-in media player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the UI).Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components, image processing logic, and file handling), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for appropriate use of design patterns, code commenting, and proper error handling strategies.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 UI 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 tool organization (grouped by function and frequency of use) 4) Visual cues for active tools and modes.Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic tool 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) Brush follows cursor without perceptible lag (≤ 16ms) 2) Preview updates occur within 100ms of user action 3) Progress indicators for operations taking >500ms 4) Smooth transitions between different UI states.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for noticeable lag during brush operations, and 5 points for processing operations that block the UI thread. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-shadow-editor-tool.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 593,
-  "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. Implement a front-end tool for adding shadows to images. After the user uploads an image, they should be able to set the shadow color, offset, and blur level. The image should display the shadow effect in real-time, and users should be able to save the processed image.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code provides a complete file input system for image upload, including file type validation (only allowing image formats), proper error handling for invalid files, and visual feedback during the upload process. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload works but lacks validation, and 10 if it includes comprehensive validation, error handling, and loading indicators.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the shadow customization controls properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether all required shadow customization options are available: color picker with alpha channel support, horizontal/vertical offset controls, blur radius adjustment, and spread radius control if applicable. Controls should have appropriate min/max values and step increments. Deduct 3 points for each missing control, 2 points if controls lack proper range limits, and 2 points if the UI doesn't provide visual cues for current values.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the real-time shadow preview work correctly?",
-      "description": "Verify that shadow changes are applied to the image in real-time without noticeable delay (<100ms). The preview should accurately reflect the final output. Deduct 5 points if the preview is delayed (>200ms), 5 points if the preview doesn't match the final output, and 5 points if the preview fails under certain parameter combinations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the image saving functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if users can save the processed image with the applied shadow effect as a common image format (PNG/JPEG). The saved image should maintain the shadow effect and original image quality. Deduct 5 points if saving is limited to screenshots, 5 points if the shadow effect is not preserved in the saved file, and 3 points if there are no options for image format or quality selection.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as large image files, unsupported formats, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Multiple shadow layering 2. Shadow presets/templates 3. History/undo functionality 4. Batch processing capabilities). 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 adjust the same shadow property) 2. Function modules unrelated to image shadow editing (e.g., unrelated filters) 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 controls/image processing/file handling), 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 are no performance optimizations for large images. 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 control placement. 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) Shadow update delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions when adjusting parameters 3) Clear visual indicators for active controls. Deduct 5 points for sluggish shadow updates, 3 points for jerky slider movements, and 5 points for confusing interface state feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-text-annotation-tool-with-save.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 525,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, expert responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Develop a front-end project with image text annotation functionality. After users upload an image, they should be able to input text at specified positions on the image, with options to set font, color, and size. When the input is complete, users should be able to save the image with the added text to their local device.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the image upload and display functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly handles image file upload through HTML file input, includes proper file type validation (JPEG, PNG, GIF, WebP), file size limitations, and displays the uploaded image with proper scaling and positioning on canvas or similar element. Score 0 if basic upload is not working, 5 if only basic upload without validation is implemented, and 10 if complete upload with validation, preview, and error handling is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the text positioning and input system accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code provides precise click-to-position text input functionality with coordinate mapping between display and actual image dimensions. Must include visual indicators for text placement, input field positioning, and coordinate transformation handling for different image scales. Deduct 5 points if coordinate mapping is inaccurate, and 3 points if visual feedback for positioning is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are comprehensive text styling options provided?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation includes complete font customization controls: font family selection, size adjustment (with reasonable range limits), color picker with hex/RGB support, and real-time preview of styling changes. Deduct 3 points for each missing styling option, 5 points if real-time preview is not implemented. Check for proper styling persistence and rendering accuracy. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the image saving and export functionality properly constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements canvas-based image rendering that combines the original image with overlaid text, maintains original image quality and resolution, and provides download functionality with proper filename handling. Deduct 5 points if text rendering quality is poor, 3 points if original image resolution is not preserved, and 5 points if download mechanism fails. Give 10 points if fully implemented with high-quality output.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid file uploads, oversized images, special characters in text input, 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. Text shadow and outline effects 2. Multiple text layers with drag-and-drop repositioning 3. Batch text styling 4. Undo/redo functionality 5. Text templates or presets). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload handlers) 2. Function modules unrelated to image annotation (e.g., built-in image filters unrelated to text overlay) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during text input). 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 image handling/text rendering/UI control layers), proper event handling, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper separation of concerns is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching for UI controls (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear tool organization (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography in interface (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy between image area and control panels. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic 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-to-position feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Text input responsiveness and real-time preview updates 3) Smooth styling control interactions 4) Clear visual focus guidance for active text elements 5) Intuitive cursor changes and hover states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without proper feedback, 3 points for laggy text positioning, and 5 points for unclear interaction states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-text-watermark-frontend-project.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 584,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create a frontend project for adding text watermarks to images. After users upload an image, they can input the text they want to add, select the text color, font size, and position on the page. When they click the \"Add Watermark\" button, the image will display with the watermark effect. Users should be able to save the watermarked image.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic image upload functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes proper file input handling with image format validation (.jpg, .png, etc.), size limitation, error handling for invalid files, and a preview display. Check if the uploaded image is correctly rendered on the canvas before watermark application. Score 0 if no upload functionality exists, 5 if basic upload works without validation, and 10 if all validations and preview are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the text watermark configuration system comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code allows users to fully customize watermark text with all required options: text input, color picker with hex/rgba support, font family selection with at least 3 options, font size control with proper limits (10-72pt), opacity adjustment (0-100%), and positioning control. Deduct 2 points for each missing feature. Must include proper input validation and real-time preview of changes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the watermark application mechanism correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code properly applies text watermark to the image using Canvas API or appropriate alternative. Verify that text rendering maintains quality at different sizes, preserves transparency settings, and implements proper positioning according to user selection (9-point grid or free positioning). Deduct 5 points if text becomes pixelated when applied, 3 points if positioning is limited/inaccurate, and 5 points if text styling is not properly rendered. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the image export/save functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review if the code provides a working mechanism to save the watermarked image in original quality, with appropriate file format options (.jpg, .png), maintains aspect ratio, and preserves metadata when needed. Check for proper use of canvas.toDataURL() or canvas.toBlob() with correct parameters, and implementation of download attributes. Deduct 5 points if image quality is degraded during saving, 3 points if format options are missing, and 5 points if the save mechanism is browser-incompatible. 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 image formats, oversized files, failure to load images, 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. Multiple watermark layers support 2. Watermark templates with quick apply options 3. Batch processing for multiple images 4. Advanced text effects like shadows/outline/gradient). 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 image rendering methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to watermarking (e.g., unnecessary image filters) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/file handling), performance optimization for large images, memory management, and proper use of async operations. 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 large images cause noticeable performance issues. 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) Watermark preview updates in real-time (≤ 100ms) 2) Proper loading indicators for time-consuming operations 3) Clear visual feedback for all user actions. Deduct 5 points for laggy watermark previews, 3 points for missing loading states during image processing, and 5 points for poor discoverability of key functions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/image-watermark-remover-responsive-design.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 460,
-  "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. I want to create an application that can remove watermarks from images, with the ability to either freely select areas or automatically detect areas for removal. Please provide me with code that I can use on both computer and mobile devices, with responsive design that adapts to different screen sizes.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Core Image Processing Implementation",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements fundamental image processing techniques for watermark removal, including algorithms such as inpainting, exemplar-based texture synthesis, or frequency domain filtering. Check if the implementation allows for adjusting parameters to handle different types of watermarks (semi-transparent, opaque, pattern-based).0 points if basic image processing is missing, 5 points if only simple opacity-based removal is implemented, 10 points for comprehensive multi-technique approach with parameter adjustments.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Area Selection Mechanisms",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of both manual selection tools (rectangular, lasso, polygon) and automatic watermark detection algorithms. Check if the manual selection includes precision tools like edge refinement and feathering controls. Verify that automatic detection can handle common watermark types through methods like frequency analysis or pattern recognition.Deduct 5 points if only rectangular selection is available, 3 points if automatic detection is unreliable across different image types. Full 10 points requires both flexible manual selection and effective automatic detection.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Preview and Comparison Features",
-      "description": "Assess whether the application provides real-time or near-real-time preview of watermark removal results, and includes before/after comparison tools. Check for features like split-screen view, opacity slider for comparison, and zoom capabilities to examine details.Deduct 5 points if preview is only available after processing, 3 points if comparison tools are limited. Give 10 points for interactive, real-time preview with comprehensive comparison features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Cross-platform Responsiveness",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the implementation truly works across desktop and mobile platforms with appropriate UI adjustments. Check if the code uses responsive design principles, touch-friendly controls for mobile, and maintains functionality across different screen sizes and input methods.Deduct 5 points if mobile experience is significantly compromised, 3 points if desktop-specific features don't gracefully degrade on smaller screens. Award 10 points for seamless experience across all device types.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Code Robustness",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases like extremely large images, unusual formats, memory constraints, and browser limitations. Check for graceful degradation when optimal performance isn't possible.Evaluate whether the code handles common abnormal situations (such as invalid images, memory overflow, browser compatibility issues) and provides friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should 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": "Innovative Features",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted watermark type detection 2. Batch processing capabilities 3. History of edits with non-destructive workflow 4. Export with metadata preservation).Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Feature Relevance and Optimization",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar removal algorithms 2. Function modules unrelated to image processing (e.g., excessive social sharing features) 3. Memory-intensive features that affect performance on mobile devices.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": "Engineering Quality",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating processing logic/UI/state management), lazy loading of heavy resources, 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 heavy processing isn't handled with workers or async operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Interface Design Quality",
-      "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 indication of processing status and progress.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": "Interaction Experience",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Processing feedback with visual progress indicators 2) Smooth transitions between states (selection to processing to result) 3) Intuitive controls with appropriate touch targets for mobile.Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for laggy responses during image processing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/multimedia_editing-image_editing/javascript-drawing-board-with-magnified-pixel-grid.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1408,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and expert responses. Be sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Write a drawing board in JavaScript that offers features like pens, brushes, erasers, etc., and where each pixel in the image can be magnified to a 3x3 pixel grid.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core drawing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements basic drawing tools through HTML Canvas/JavaScript: pen, brush, and eraser with different sizes and opacity. Check if the drawing engine correctly captures user input events (mouse/touch) and renders strokes with proper anti-aliasing. Score 0 if core drawing functionality is absent, 5 if only basic drawing is implemented, and 10 if multiple tools with adjustable parameters are fully included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the pixel magnification feature correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the 3x3 pixel grid magnification. Check if the code properly handles the translation between normal view and magnified view, maintains pixel data consistency, and updates the magnified view in real-time as the user draws. Verify if the magnification logic works correctly without artifacts or performance issues. Deduct 5 points if magnification is inconsistent, and 3 points if there's noticeable lag during magnified drawing operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are drawing state management and history operations implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the drawing board implements undo/redo functionality with a proper history stack. Verify if the state management handles complex operations like brush strokes, eraser use, and color changes correctly. Ensure the history mechanism is memory-efficient (using incremental changes rather than full canvas snapshots). Deduct 5 points if undo/redo is limited to only a few steps, and 3 points if certain operations can't be undone. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is a comprehensive toolset provided with proper UI controls?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the range of drawing tools offered beyond basic requirements. Check for color pickers, brush size selectors, opacity controls, shape tools, fill tools, and other creative options. Examine if the UI controls are intuitive and properly integrated with the canvas functionality. Deduct 2 points for each essential missing tool (color picker, size selector, etc.), and give full points only if the toolset is comprehensive and well-organized. 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 out-of-bounds drawing, rapid tool switching, browser resizing, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle edge cases like drawing outside canvas boundaries and prevent memory leaks, 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. Layer system for complex drawings 2. Export/import functionality with multiple formats 3. Custom brushes or pattern stamps 4. Symmetry drawing modes). 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 color picker implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to drawing (e.g., unrelated animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect drawing performance (e.g., unnecessary visual effects during drawing). 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 drawing logic/UI/state management), code reusability, and event handling patterns. 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 clear separation between UI events and drawing logic. 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 the UI (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional tool organization (grouped by function, with clear visual hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic tool arrangement. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the drawing interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the drawing experience conforms to human expectations: 1) Drawing latency ≤ 16ms (60fps) 2) Smooth brush strokes without jitter 3) Responsive tool switching without delay. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag during drawing, 3 points for stroke jitter or inconsistencies, and 5 points for delayed response when switching between tools or canvas modes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Multimedia Editing-Image Editing",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}