@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/web_applications-communication/wechat-mini-program-photo-video-management.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1717,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code demonstrations when possible. \n\n1. Code for a mini program that allows uploading photos and videos\n2. Code that enables categorizing and annotating photos and videos uploaded to the mini program, with capability to share them via WeChat while hiding certain key text information \n3. Specify the WeChat mini program",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat mini program photo/video upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements the WeChat API for media upload, including proper handling of file formats (JPEG, PNG, MP4, etc.), size restrictions (maximum 10MB per file as per WeChat limits), and compression options. Check if the implementation handles both image and video preview before upload. Score 0 if core upload functionality is missing, 5 if only basic uploads work without proper feedback, and 10 if the implementation handles all file types with progress indicators and error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the media categorization and annotation system comprehensively designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a robust categorization system (folder/album structure, tags, or both) and annotation capabilities (text overlays, descriptions, location data). Check if the system allows for searching/filtering based on categories and annotations. Deduct 5 points if the categorization is limited to only basic folders, 3 points if annotation capabilities are minimal. The full score is 10 points if a comprehensive system with multiple organization methods and rich annotation options is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat sharing functionality properly implemented with information hiding?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements the WeChat sharing mechanism using official APIs and properly handles the information hiding requirements. Verify if sensitive text can be selectively hidden when sharing while maintaining the visual integrity of the media. Deduct 5 points if sharing works but without information hiding capabilities, 3 points if the hiding mechanism is basic (e.g., simple blurring without options). Full score requires flexible control over what information is hidden and how it's masked when shared.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the mini program properly integrated with the WeChat ecosystem?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly utilizes WeChat's specific APIs and conventions, including login flow, user profile integration, permissions management, and adherence to WeChat's design guidelines. Check if the program leverages WeChat-specific capabilities like cloud storage and OpenID. Deduct 5 points if basic WeChat integration is missing, 3 points if only partial integration exists. Full score requires seamless integration with multiple WeChat platform features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, permission denials, invalid file types, large file uploads, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered auto-tagging of photos 2. Custom filters or effects for photos/videos 3. Batch processing capabilities 4. Timeline visualization of media). 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 media pickers) 2. Function modules unrelated to media management (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations on every screen). 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/API calls), component reusability, and configuration management. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if proper WeChat mini program patterns are not followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error logging or monitoring integration. 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 WeChat's design guidelines and modern principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (following WeChat's palette) 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 design that clashes with WeChat's aesthetic, and 5 points for chaotic media gallery 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) Touch feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual cues during upload/processing. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy transitions when browsing media, and 5 points for confusing navigation between categories. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/wechat-mini-program-psychological-counseling.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 857,
-  "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. I am a university student new to Java, and I need to create a one-on-one psychological counseling mini program. The main function is to assign volunteers to clients based on their needs and categories. Please provide complete code using only the WeChat Mini Program development tool. If backend integration is necessary, please provide the complete frontend code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat Mini Program foundation correctly set up?",
-      "description": "Check if the project structure follows WeChat Mini Program standards with app.js, app.json, app.wxss, and appropriate page folders. Verify the required configuration in app.json (including pages array, window settings, tabBar if needed). Deduct 5 points if core configuration files are missing, 3 points for incorrect structure. Score 0 if the code doesn't use WeChat Mini Program framework at all, 5 if basic structure exists but with issues, 10 if perfectly configured.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the client-volunteer matching system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the matching algorithm considers client needs and volunteer categories. Check if there's logic for comparing client requirements with volunteer expertise, availability tracking, and conflict resolution. Deduct 5 points if matching is random without consideration of needs, 3 points if only basic category matching exists. Score 10 if the system includes sophisticated matching with priority handling and multiple matching criteria.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the user authentication and role management functionalities implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code differentiates between clients and volunteers with proper role-based access control. Verify if user registration, login using WeChat authentication, and profile management are implemented. Deduct 5 points if no role distinction exists, 3 points if roles exist but permissions aren't enforced. Score 10 if comprehensive user management with proper WeChat login integration is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the counseling session management fully functional?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code supports scheduling, session status tracking (pending/ongoing/completed), and feedback collection. Check if notifications for session changes are implemented. Deduct 5 points if scheduling is missing, 3 points if session status can't be tracked. Score 10 if the system handles the complete counseling lifecycle with reminders and feedback mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, invalid inputs, edge cases in matching logic) 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 matching suggestions 2. In-app secure messaging for counseling 3. Mood tracking for clients with 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 three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple user management systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to counseling (e.g., a built-in game system) 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/API calls), use of component-based architecture, and proper state management practices in the Mini Program context. Deduct 5 points if global state is used inappropriately; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or documentation. 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 WeChat Mini Program design principles: 1) Consistent with WeChat's visual language 2) Proper layout using flex boxes and rpx units 3) Appropriate use of WeChat UI components. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent visual element, 5 points for poor responsive design, and 5 points for non-standard UI component implementations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions conform to Mini Program best practices: 1) Page transitions are smooth 2) Loading states are properly indicated 3) Form validation provides immediate feedback. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without loading indicators during network requests, 3 points for jarring page transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/wechat-mini-program-registration-login-identity-verification.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 790,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Write WeChat Mini Program code for registration, login, and real identity verification. Identity verification methods: WeChat verification/Alipay verification source code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat Mini Program registration and login system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements WeChat Mini Program's wx.login() API integration, session key management, and user authorization flow. Check if it includes proper handling of openid/unionid acquisition, user profile binding, and secure token generation. Score 0 if core authentication logic is missing, 5 if only basic login is implemented, and 10 if complete registration/login flow with proper session management is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat identity verification mechanism properly integrated?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the WeChat real-name verification uses official APIs (wx.checkIsSupportSoterAuthentication, wx.startSoterAuthentication) or integrates with WeChat Pay real-name verification services. Check for proper certificate validation, biometric authentication handling, and secure data transmission. Deduct 5 points if verification result validation is missing, and 3 points if error handling for verification failures is inadequate. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the Alipay verification integration correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the Alipay identity verification implements proper SDK integration or H5 redirection flow for real-name authentication. Evaluate if it includes certificate parsing, identity information validation, and secure callback handling. Verify that the implementation handles Alipay's authentication response properly and stores verification results securely. Deduct 5 points if callback verification is incomplete, and 5 points if cross-platform compatibility issues exist. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is comprehensive identity verification workflow and data security implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes complete identity verification lifecycle management: verification initiation, progress tracking, result validation, and certificate storage. Check for data encryption during transmission, secure local storage handling, and compliance with privacy regulations. Deduct 5 points if sensitive data is not encrypted, and 3 points if verification status synchronization is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper security measures.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network timeouts, API call failures, user cancellation, invalid certificates, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases including partial verification failures and retry mechanisms, giving 10 points. If 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 user experience (e.g., 1. OCR-based ID card scanning 2. Face recognition integration 3. Multi-factor authentication options 4. Progressive verification levels 5. Verification status dashboard). 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 authentication flows (e.g., multiple login validation logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to identity verification (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Excessive verification steps that hinder user experience (e.g., unnecessary multiple confirmations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core verification 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 authentication logic/UI components/API services), proper error handling, and Mini Program best practices compliance. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or component lifecycle is not properly managed; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if Mini Program performance optimization guidelines are not followed. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI design follows WeChat Mini Program design guidelines: 1) Consistent with WeChat design language and color scheme 2) Proper form layout with clear input validation feedback 3) Professional typography with appropriate font sizes (≥28rpx for body text). Deduct 3 points for each confusing verification step UI, 5 points for inconsistent visual elements, and 5 points for poor form accessibility. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the verification flow smooth and user-friendly?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the verification process provides smooth user experience: 1) Clear progress indicators and step-by-step guidance 2) Immediate feedback for verification actions (≤100ms response) 3) Intuitive error messages and recovery options 4) Seamless transitions between verification methods. Deduct 5 points for each confusing verification step, 3 points for slow loading states, and 5 points for unclear error recovery paths. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/wechat-mini-program-voice-form-component.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 837,
-  "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. Please help me create a feature in a WeChat Mini Program that allows filling out forms through voice input, structured as a component. The component's name should be \"Voice\" (as in the Chinese pinyin \"yuyin\"). Please write the code for all 4 files, using the \"simultaneous interpretation\" method we discussed earlier.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Voice component properly structured according to WeChat Mini Program standards?",
-      "description": "Check if the component follows the correct WXML, WXSS, JS, JSON structure with proper component declaration. The component should have a clear interface for integration. Verify that the component configuration in JSON properly registers the component with appropriate properties and options. Score 0 if missing essential files, 5 if basic structure exists but with issues, 10 if perfectly structured according to Mini Program best practices.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the voice input feature implement proper voice recognition and text conversion?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the use of WeChat Mini Program's voice recognition APIs (like wx.startRecord and wx.getRecorderManager). Check if the implementation handles permissions, recording states, and converts speech to text accurately. The component should show appropriate UI states during recording (indicating recording in progress). Deduct 5 points if permissions handling is missing, 3 points if recording state management is poor. Full score requires robust error handling for recognition failures.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the form integration functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess how the converted text is integrated with form fields. The component should allow targeting specific form fields and inserting recognized text appropriately. Check if the component can handle different input types (text, number, etc.) and support both appending and replacing text modes. Deduct 5 points if field targeting is missing, 3 points if it doesn't handle different input types. Award 10 points for seamless integration with any form field.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the real-time feedback mechanism implemented during voice recording?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code includes visual and/or audio feedback during recording (animation, volume indication, transcription progress). Check if there's real-time text preview before final form submission. The solution should provide clear user feedback about recognition accuracy. Deduct 5 points for missing visual feedback, 3 points for no interim results display. Full score requires comprehensive user feedback during the entire voice input process.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as permission denial, network issues, recognition failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Noise cancellation 2. Multi-language support 3. Voice command shortcuts). 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 recording initialization methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to voice input (e.g., unnecessary image processing) 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/business logic/API calls), code reusability, and maintenance potential. 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 documentation for component usage. 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 WeChat Mini Program design principles: 1) Consistent with WeChat's visual language 2) Proper layout spacing following WeChat's spacing guidelines 3) Professional typography consistent with WeChat standards. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent visual element, 5 points for designs that clash with WeChat's style, and 5 points for accessibility issues. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the voice input interactions feel natural and intuitive: 1) Clear indication when recording starts/stops 2) Smooth transitions between recording states 3) Intuitive placement of recorded text in forms. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy transitions between states, and 5 points for confusing user flow. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/wechat-multi-platform-personal-center.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 853,
-  "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 purposes. Specifically, implement a personal center page for WeChat multi-platform, and package and release it to different platforms.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat personal center UI implemented comprehensively?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements all essential UI elements of a typical WeChat personal center (profile avatar, nickname, WeChat ID, moments section, wallet, settings, etc.). Check if the layout properly adapts to various screen sizes using responsive design techniques. Score 0 if core UI components are missing, 5 if basic components are present but lack polish, and 10 if the implementation is complete and faithful to WeChat's design language.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the multi-platform adaptation properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the code's approach to multi-platform support (iOS, Android, Web, Desktop). Check for platform-specific conditional rendering, use of adaptive frameworks (like Flutter, React Native, or WeChat Mini Program framework), and appropriate handling of different device capabilities. Deduct 3 points if any major platform is not properly supported, 5 points if platform-specific features are ignored, and give 10 points only if the solution elegantly handles all target platforms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the packaging and release pipeline properly configured?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes the necessary configuration files for building and releasing to different platforms (such as Xcode project files, Android Gradle scripts, web build tools, or cross-platform configurations). Verify if CI/CD pipeline scripts are provided with platform-specific signing processes. Deduct 3 points for each missing platform build configuration, and 5 points if the release process lacks security considerations. Full score requires comprehensive release automation for all platforms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are platform-specific optimizations and features implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the implementation includes platform-specific optimizations and unique features (like iOS haptic feedback, Android material design components, desktop window management, etc.). Check if the code leverages native capabilities when appropriate while maintaining a consistent user experience. Score 0 if no platform-specific optimizations exist, 5 if basic adaptations are present, and 10 if sophisticated platform-specific features are thoughtfully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, permission denials, different screen sizes, and device capabilities). Check for graceful error handling, fallback mechanisms, and proper state management. 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": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Advanced theme customization beyond WeChat defaults 2. Intelligent notification grouping 3. Cross-device synchronization enhancements). 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 profile editors) 2. Function modules unrelated to personal center (e.g., a full chat implementation) 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/logic/network layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Assess code organization, naming conventions, and comments. 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 design follows WeChat's established design language while maintaining platform-specific conventions: 1) Consistent color scheme matching WeChat's palette 2) Proper layout spacing following platform guidelines 3) Typography that adapts to platform standards. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistency with WeChat's design, 5 points for platform-inappropriate visual elements, and 5 points for accessibility issues. 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 and platform expectations: 1) Responsive touch/click feedback 2) Smooth transitions between views 3) Appropriate loading states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for janky animations or transitions, and 5 points for interactions that don't match platform conventions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/wechat-official-account-graphic-message-draft.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 943,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Help me create runnable code for drafting a new graphic message for a WeChat Official Account.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat Official Account graphics message structure properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the complete structure required for WeChat Official Account graphic messages, including title, author, cover image, digest, and content body. Verify if proper character limits are respected (title ≤64 characters, digest ≤120 characters). Score 0 if the basic structure is missing, 5 if only partial elements are implemented, and 10 if all required elements with proper validation are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the rich text editor implementation complete and functional?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a working rich text editor with essential formatting capabilities (bold, italic, paragraph styles, image insertion, links) matching WeChat's supported features. Verify if the editor properly sanitizes HTML to comply with WeChat's restrictions. Deduct 5 points if basic formatting is missing, and 3 points if the preview doesn't match actual WeChat rendering. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the image upload and processing functionality implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code handles image uploads with proper validation (file size ≤2MB, formats limited to jpg/png/gif), includes image compression/cropping tools, and manages the cover image aspect ratio (recommended 1.91:1). Check if image preview matches WeChat's display requirements. Deduct 5 points if image validation is missing, and 3 points if optimization tools are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the code include WeChat API integration for publishing?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code includes proper integration with WeChat's official API for draft creation and publishing, including authentication handling and error management. Check if the implementation includes validation against WeChat's content policies and submission flow. Deduct 5 points if API integration is superficial without error handling, and 8 points if authentication flow is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures during uploads, API timeouts, invalid 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. Template library with customizable styles 2. AI-assisted content suggestion 3. Mobile preview simulation 4. Scheduled publishing). 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 upload methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to WeChat graphic message creation (e.g., unnecessary social media sharing) 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/business logic/API 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 WeChat's design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme with WeChat's brand guidelines 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 inconsistent styling with WeChat, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during content editing, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons like 'Save' or 'Publish'. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/wechat-user-login-authorization-data-management.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1073,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the generated code is executable. I've deleted all the previous code, and now I'm restating my requirements. Based on the previous code, please provide the complete code. On the personal homepage, first design a login button. When the login button is clicked, prompt for user information authorization. After the user authorizes, display \"Already logged in\" or \"Registration successful.\" At this point, after successful login, the page displays the user's nickname as \"WeChat User,\" and add this user's information to the user data table, mainly the user_id, which can be retrieved based on the user's login status on other pages.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the login button properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the login button is visually distinct, properly positioned and has appropriate event handling. It should use standard CSS design patterns (hover/active states) and be accessible. Score 0 if the button is missing, 5 if it exists but lacks proper styling or interaction states, and 10 if fully implemented with all visual feedback states.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the user authorization flow correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code handles the OAuth flow properly, including authorization request, redirects, and token handling. Should include proper error handling for denied permissions. Deduct 5 points if security best practices are missing (e.g., CSRF protection), 3 points if scope permissions are too broad. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the post-login state management properly handled?",
-      "description": "Check if the page correctly updates to show 'Already logged in' or 'Registration successful' based on the user's status. Verify that the UI changes are persistent across page refreshes using proper storage mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if state is lost on refresh, 3 points if transitions between states are not smooth. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is user data storage and retrieval correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code correctly stores user_id and other required information to the user data table and if this data can be effectively retrieved on other pages. Check for proper data sanitization and validation. Deduct 5 points if data persistence is incomplete, 3 points if the cross-page data access mechanism is incomplete. 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 authorization failures, network interruptions, session timeouts, 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. Animated transitions during login flow 2. Personalized welcome messages 3. Progressive user profile completion suggestions). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple authentication methods without clear purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to user authentication (e.g., unnecessary analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations during critical authentication steps). 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 authentication logic/UI components/data handling), 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 security best practices for authentication are not followed. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/8th-grade-english-sentence-completion-interactive-html.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 250,
-  "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. Based on the vocabulary in the document, create \"8th grade second semester\" level English multiple-choice sentence completion exercises with 4 options, and output them in interactive clickable HTML format for users to review and test themselves.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the HTML structure for interactive English exercises properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the HTML structure includes proper semantic elements (form, fieldset, input[type=radio], etc.) for multiple-choice questions. Check if the questions are properly sectioned and if the code includes proper labeling for accessibility. Score 0 if basic HTML structure is missing, 5 if minimal structure is present but lacks proper semantic elements, and 10 if the structure is complete with proper semantic elements and accessibility considerations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the content generation for 8th grade second semester English vocabulary appropriate?",
-      "description": "Check whether the generated multiple-choice questions accurately reflect 8th grade second semester English vocabulary level. Evaluate if sentence completion exercises are contextually appropriate and if the distractors (wrong options) are plausible but clearly incorrect. Deduct 5 points if vocabulary level is inappropriate, 3 points if context sentences are poorly constructed, and 2 points if distractors are too obvious or too difficult. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the interactive functionality for selecting and checking answers implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if JavaScript code implements option selection, answer validation, and feedback mechanisms. Check for immediate feedback after selection and proper score tracking. Score 0 if no interactivity exists, 5 if basic selection functionality works but lacks proper feedback, and 10 if full interactivity with proper validation and meaningful feedback is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there an evaluation and tracking system for user performance?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code tracks user performance (correct/wrong answers), calculates percentage scores, and provides performance summaries. Check if users can review their mistakes and see correct answers. Deduct 3 points if no tracking exists, 3 points if calculation errors are present, and 4 points if performance review features are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as no selection made before submission, rapid multiple clicks, browser refresh, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the learning experience (e.g., 1. Spaced repetition review system 2. Visual progress tracking 3. Adaptive difficulty based on performance). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple scoring systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to language exercises (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Features that affect performance without educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating question data/UI components/scoring logic), reusability, and maintainability. 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 code is not organized in logical functions or components. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional educational design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows educational UX principles: 1) Appropriate color contrast for readability 2) Clear visual hierarchy with proper spacing between questions 3) Consistent typography with readable font sizes (at least 16px). Deduct 3 points for cluttered layout, 5 points for poor readability due to color/contrast issues, and 5 points for inconsistent visual presentation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and intuitive for educational use?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interaction design is appropriate for learning: 1) Clear indication of selected options 2) Immediate visual feedback on correct/incorrect answers 3) Intuitive navigation between questions. Deduct 5 points for confusing selection states, 3 points for delayed or unclear feedback, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation or progression. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}