@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/management_systems-file_management/vue3-large-file-upload-breakpoint-continuation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 408,
-  "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. Implement large file slice upload and breakpoint continuation in Vue 3.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file slicing mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code correctly implements file slicing using the Blob API, with appropriate chunk size determination (ideally configurable, typically 2-5MB per chunk). Check for proper handling of file metadata (MIME type, original filename, total size) and generation of a unique file identifier for tracking upload progress. Score 0 if slicing is not implemented, 5 if basic slicing exists but with fixed chunk size, 10 if it has adaptive/configurable chunk sizing with proper metadata handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the breakpoint continuation logic correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of breakpoint resumption, including persistent storage of upload state (using IndexedDB, localStorage, or server-side tracking), chunk verification mechanisms (MD5/SHA hash for each chunk), and proper handling of previously uploaded chunks. Deduct 5 points if uploaded chunks can't be verified after page reload, 3 points if the resumption mechanism relies solely on server-side state. Full score requires both client and server-side state tracking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the upload progress tracking and visualization implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements accurate progress tracking for both individual chunks and overall file upload. Progress visualization should include percentage completion, upload speed, estimated time remaining, and visual feedback for each chunk status (pending, uploading, completed, failed). Deduct 3 points for missing speed calculation, 2 points for no time estimation, and 5 points for lack of per-chunk status visualization.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the implementation include proper error handling and retry mechanisms?",
-      "description": "Assess error handling for network issues, server errors, and file access problems. Look for automatic retry logic with exponential backoff, configurable retry limits, and proper user feedback during failures. Check for graceful degradation when features aren't supported. Deduct 5 points for missing retry logic, 3 points for constant retry intervals, and 2 points for inadequate error messages to users.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser tab closure during upload, network fluctuations, file type restrictions, size limits, 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. Drag-and-drop upload support 2. Image/video previews during upload 3. Background uploading with service workers 4. Parallel uploading with configurable concurrency). 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 reading methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file uploads (e.g., unnecessary data processing) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during upload). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating upload logic/UI components/API services), use of Vue 3's Composition API, proper TypeScript typing, and unit test coverage. Deduct 5 points if global state is overused when Composables would be more appropriate; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there are no meaningful 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 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 upload interface provides clear visual feedback: 1) Upload button state changes ≤ 100ms after selection 2) Progress updates at least every 500ms 3) Clear visual distinction between upload states (queued, uploading, paused, completed, failed). Deduct 5 points for laggy UI updates during large file uploads, 3 points for confusing state transitions, and 5 points for missing abort/pause/resume controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/web-search-word-pdf-files.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 955,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional replies. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Help me write a web-based software that implements search functionality for Word and PDF files.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the file upload and parsing functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload handling for both Word (.docx, .doc) and PDF formats through HTML file input and JavaScript. Check if proper file type validation, size limits, and content extraction are implemented. Score 0 if core file parsing is not implemented, 5 if only basic upload without parsing is present, and 10 if complete text extraction from both formats with error handling is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the search algorithm and indexing system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the search functionality includes efficient text indexing, keyword matching algorithms (exact match, fuzzy search, boolean operators), and result ranking mechanisms. Check for search performance optimization and real-time search suggestions. Deduct 5 points if no indexing strategy is used, 3 points if search is case-sensitive only, and 3 points if no search result highlighting is implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the search result display and navigation system well-designed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code provides comprehensive search result presentation including file previews, context snippets with highlighted keywords, pagination or infinite scroll, and sorting options (by relevance, date, file type). Evaluate if result navigation allows users to jump to specific locations within documents. Deduct 5 points if no result preview is available, 3 points if no keyword highlighting in results. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the file management and storage system properly constructed?",
-      "description": "Review whether the system includes proper file storage management (local storage, session storage, or server-side), file organization features (folders, tags, categories), and document metadata handling (creation date, file size, last modified). Check for file deletion, bulk operations, and search history functionality. Deduct 5 points if no persistent storage is implemented, 3 points if no file organization features exist. Give 10 points if fully implemented with backup mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted files, unsupported formats, large file processing, memory limitations, and network interruptions) 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 search experience (e.g., 1. OCR capability for scanned PDFs 2. Advanced search filters by date/size/content type 3. Search result export functionality 4. Full-text search with regex support 5. Search analytics and statistics). 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 parsing libraries for the same format) 2. Function modules unrelated to search functionality (e.g., built-in document editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect search performance (e.g., excessive animations during search). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core search 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 file parsing/search engine/UI layers), error handling patterns, and code organization structure. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no proper separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no proper async/await patterns for file operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the search interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clean search bar design with proper spacing 2) Intuitive file type icons and visual hierarchy 3) Professional color scheme with sufficient contrast 4) Responsive layout for different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for poor search result readability, and 5 points for inconsistent styling across components. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the search interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the search functionality provides optimal user experience: 1) Search input response time ≤ 200ms for auto-suggestions 2) File upload progress indicators and feedback 3) Loading states during search operations 4) Smooth transitions between search states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without proper feedback, 3 points for laggy search input, and 5 points for unclear loading states during file processing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/webpage-software-categorization-image-display.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1723,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. I indeed use a webpage to implement consistent software categorization and image display. Various downloaded software is stored in the D:\\Download folder. Please write code to implement this, ensuring the webpage is aesthetically pleasing and elegant.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "File system scanning and categorization implementation",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements a file system scanner that can traverse the D:\\Download directory, identify file types accurately, and categorize them based on extensions or content signatures. Check if it handles various edge cases like permissions, locked files, and large directories.0 points if no file scanning functionality exists, 5 points for basic extension-based categorization, 10 points for comprehensive detection including content signature analysis and proper error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "User interface design and visual categorization system",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI implements a clear visual categorization system with consistent visual language for different software types. Check if the interface follows a grid layout, employs appropriate thumbnails/icons, and provides visual cues for software categories.Deduct 5 points for inconsistent visual language across categories, 3 points for poor information hierarchy, and 5 points for lack of visual differentiation between categories. 10 points for a comprehensive, well-designed categorization system.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Image rendering and thumbnail generation",
-      "description": "Assess if the code properly generates and caches thumbnails for software installers, optimizes image loading, and implements lazy loading for better performance. Check if appropriate default icons are used when thumbnails cannot be extracted.Deduct 5 points if no thumbnail generation exists, 3 points if thumbnails are not cached for performance, 2 points if image quality is poor. 10 points for optimal thumbnail extraction with fallback mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Search and filter functionality",
-      "description": "Check if the implementation includes robust search capabilities with real-time filtering, multiple filter criteria (size, date, type, name), and maintains usability during search operations.0 points if search functionality is missing, 5 points for basic text search only, 10 points for comprehensive search with multiple filters, highlighting, and keyboard shortcuts.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as missing files, access denied errors, corrupted images, network interruptions when fetching metadata) 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. Auto-categorization using AI 2. Detect duplicates across categories 3. Visual history timeline of downloads 4. Integration with software update checks).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 file scanning algorithms 2. Unnecessary data processing unrelated to the core functionality 3. Fancy effects that affect load time and 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 file system access/UI rendering/data processing), error handling coverage, and appropriate use of web technologies.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 build process or module system 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 (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 for software selection and category navigation.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast category switching, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-file_management/wechat-mini-program-pdf-download-forward.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1364,
-  "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. Help me provide an example of a WeChat Mini Program that downloads and forwards PDF files stored in the cloud.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the PDF download functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the PDF download functionality through wx.downloadFile API, handling large files with proper timeout settings, progress indicators, and error handling. Score 0 if core download logic is not implemented, 5 if basic download works but lacks progress tracking, and 10 if it includes complete download management with retry mechanisms and network condition adaptations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file forwarding mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code uses wx.shareFileMessage API correctly to forward PDF files to chats, including proper file selection UI, preview before sharing, and handling of sharing cancellations. Deduct 5 points if only direct forwarding is supported without preview, and 3 points if sharing failures aren't properly handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is cloud storage integration correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements proper integration with cloud services (WeChat Cloud or third-party services like OSS), includes authentication mechanisms, handles token expiration, and implements proper file listing with pagination. Deduct 5 points if cloud authentication is hardcoded, 3 points if file listing doesn't support searching/filtering. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper security measures.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is file management functionality comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes complete file management features such as listing downloaded PDFs, deleting local files to free up space, file categorization, and search functionality. Deduct 5 points if only basic listing is provided, 3 points if file metadata (size, date) isn't displayed. The full score is 10 points for comprehensive file management with sorting options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as broken downloads, network interruption, insufficient storage space, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. PDF thumbnail generation 2. Background downloading when app is inactive 3. Batch downloading/sharing). 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 download methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to PDF handling (e.g., built-in video player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations during downloads). 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 network/storage/UI layers), component reuse, and proper code organization according to Mini Program standards. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if custom components aren't properly encapsulated. 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 design guidelines: 1) Proper use of WeChat's design language 2) Consistent spacing and layout 3) Clear visual hierarchy for file operations. Deduct 3 points for each UI element that doesn't match WeChat's style, 5 points for overcomplicated interfaces, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. 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 Mini Program interaction standards: 1) Responsive download buttons 2) Smooth transitions between screens 3) Clear visual feedback during operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy animations, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-File Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/academic-conference-submission-system-with-review.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 657,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate, expert responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create an academic conference submission system that supports PDF paper uploads and automatically checks format standards (pages, font, margins). Provide double-blind review mode (automatically removing author information) and support submission progress tracking on PC/mobile devices. Include plagiarism detection status indicators (integrated with Turnitin).",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the PDF upload and format validation system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete PDF upload system with format validation functionalities including page count verification, font detection, and margin measurement. Score 0 if uploading is not implemented, 5 if only basic PDF uploading works without validation, and 10 if all format validations are correctly implemented with appropriate error handling and user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the double-blind review mode properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system can automatically detect and remove author information from submitted PDFs and metadata. Check for watermarking or other techniques to track submissions anonymously. Deduct 5 points if author information is only removed from metadata but not from the PDF content, and 3 points if the anonymization process is not reversible for administrators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the submission tracking functionality cross-platform compatible?",
-      "description": "Check whether the tracking system works seamlessly on both PC and mobile devices with responsive design principles. Verify if real-time status updates are implemented and if the interface adapts appropriately to different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for non-responsive designs, 5 points if mobile experience is significantly degraded, and 5 points if real-time updates require manual refresh. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the Turnitin plagiarism detection integration implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes proper API integration with Turnitin or similar plagiarism detection services, with appropriate status indicators and result visualization. Check for proper error handling if the service is unavailable and queueing mechanisms for large volumes. Deduct 5 points if only mock integration is provided, and 3 points if results are not clearly visualized. 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 corrupted PDFs, 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. AI-based format suggestion engine 2. Automated citation validation 3. Interactive submission workflow with progress 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 file validation systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to academic submission (e.g., extensive social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations on status pages). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating storage/validation/UI layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching appropriate for academic contexts (professional, understated 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 inappropriate color combinations, 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) Upload feedback with clear progress indicators 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for multi-step submission process. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring state transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation in the submission workflow. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/account-management-interface-design.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1695,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Main Interface Design\n\n## Account Overview:\nDisplays key information including current account equity, available margin, floating profit/loss, etc.\n\n## Manual Operation Area:\nIncludes buy and sell buttons, position closing options, and features for setting stop-loss and take-profit points.\n\n## Parameter Configuration Area:\nAllows users to set parameters such as the percentage of funds used for each trade, initial position size, etc.\n\n## Daily Profit/Loss Chart:\nGraphically displays daily profit and loss information.\n\n## 2. Functional Modules\n\n### 2.1 Account Equity Monitoring\n- Use AccountEquity() to retrieve account equity.\n- Regularly refresh (e.g., every minute) and update on the interface.\n\n### 2.2 Automatic Position Size Adjustment\n- Users input specific equity-to-position size ratios in the parameter configuration area (e.g., $300 corresponds to 0.01 lot).\n- Calculate appropriate lot size based on current account equity and set ratios, applying this calculation when opening new orders.\n\n### 2.3 Manual Order Placement and Closure\n- Provide intuitive interface for users to select currency pair, lot size, stop-loss/take-profit levels before clicking \"Buy\" or \"Sell\" to place orders.\n- Display a list of all open positions, allowing users to close positions directly by clicking on the corresponding order.\n\n### 2.4 Daily Profit/Loss Statistics\n- Record total daily profit/loss at the end of each day (determined by server time).\n- Use chart libraries (such as standard chart functions in MQL4) to draw daily profit/loss graphs.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the trading interface dashboard fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements all four main interface sections: Account Overview (displaying current equity, available margin, floating P&L), Manual Operation Area (buy/sell buttons, position closing, stop-loss/take-profit settings), Parameter Configuration Area (fund percentage settings, initial position size), and Daily P&L Chart (graphical display). Score 0 if core dashboard components are missing, 5 if only basic account display is implemented, and 10 if all interface sections are fully functional with real-time data updates.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the account equity monitoring and automatic position size adjustment system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the AccountEquity() function is correctly integrated with regular refresh mechanisms (every minute updates), and verify if the automatic position size calculation based on equity-to-lot ratios is accurately implemented. The system should dynamically calculate appropriate lot sizes based on current account equity and user-defined ratios (e.g., $300 = 0.01 lot). Deduct 5 points if real-time monitoring is missing, and 3 points if position size calculations are inaccurate. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the manual trading functionality and order management system complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the manual order placement system includes intuitive currency pair selection, lot size input, stop-loss/take-profit level settings, and functional buy/sell execution. Verify if the open positions list displays all active orders with direct closing capabilities. The system should handle order validation and execution feedback. Deduct 5 points if order placement lacks proper validation, and 3 points if position management interface is incomplete. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the daily profit/loss statistics and charting system properly constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete daily P&L recording mechanism based on server time, with proper data storage and retrieval. Verify if chart libraries (MQL4 standard chart functions or equivalent) are correctly implemented to visualize daily profit/loss trends. The system should maintain historical data and provide clear graphical representation. Deduct 5 points if data persistence is not implemented, and 3 points if charting functionality is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with historical data management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common trading platform exceptions (such as connection failures, invalid order parameters, insufficient margin, market closure, etc.) and provide appropriate error handling or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases and provide clear user feedback, 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 enhance trading experience?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes valuable features that improve trading efficiency (e.g., 1. Risk management alerts and notifications 2. Trading performance analytics and insights 3. Customizable dashboard layouts 4. Advanced order types like trailing stops). 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 trading functions (e.g., multiple order placement logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to trading operations (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Excessive visual effects that affect trading performance (e.g., complex animations during critical operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core trading 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 trading logic/UI/data management layers), error handling coverage, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the architecture is not scalable for future trading features. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the trading interface design meet professional financial software standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional trading platform principles: 1) Clear information hierarchy with critical trading data prominently displayed 2) Consistent color coding for profit (green) and loss (red) indicators 3) Professional typography with readable font sizes (≥12px for numbers, ≥14px for text) 4) Proper spacing and alignment following grid systems. Deduct 3 points for each confusing visual element, 5 points for unprofessional color schemes, and 5 points for cluttered layout that hinders trading decisions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the trading interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the trading operations meet professional standards: 1) Order execution feedback ≤ 50ms 2) Real-time data updates without lag 3) Clear confirmation dialogs for critical actions (order placement/closure) 4) Intuitive navigation between different trading functions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for delayed data updates that could affect trading decisions, and 5 points for unclear or hard-to-access critical trading functions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/admin-page-data-view-edit-api-monitoring.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1484,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to generate executable code whenever possible. I need an admin page that allows for convenient viewing and editing of all data, and where all detailed API requests can be monitored from the admin interface.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the admin dashboard UI fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements a complete admin dashboard with navigation, layout components, and organized sections for data management. Score 0 if only HTML structure without functionality, 5 if basic UI elements are present but lack cohesiveness, and 10 if a professional and complete dashboard interface is implemented with responsive design considerations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the data viewing/editing functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation includes data tables/lists with pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, and proper CRUD operations. Check if form validation is implemented for data editing. Deduct 3 points if pagination is missing, 3 points if sorting/filtering is absent, and 5 points if edit/delete operations are incomplete. Full score requires complete data management with optimistic UI updates.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the API monitoring system implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes real-time API request monitoring with detailed information (method, URL, payload, headers, response, timing). Deduct 5 points if monitoring is not real-time, 3 points if request details are insufficient, and 3 points if there's no way to filter or search through requests. Full score requires complete monitoring with visual indicators for request status and performance metrics.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is authentication and authorization properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the admin interface implements secure login, role-based permissions, and protection against unauthorized access. Check for token management, session handling, and proper API security. Deduct 5 points for missing authentication, 3 points for lack of role-based controls, and 3 points for security vulnerabilities (XSS, CSRF). Give 10 points only if the implementation follows security best practices.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, invalid inputs, server errors, 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. Dark/light theme switching 2. Dashboard customization 3. Export options for data/logs 4. Visualizations of API 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 data fetching methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to admin purposes (e.g., end-user features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/UI/API layers), component reusability, state management approach, 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 there's no clear architecture. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the admin interface follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme appropriate for data-heavy interfaces 2) Proper layout spacing with clear visual hierarchy 3) Professional typography with adequate contrast ratios for readability. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for poor information hierarchy, 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 professional admin interface standards: 1) Immediate feedback for user actions 2) Loading states for asynchronous operations 3) Smooth transitions between views without jarring changes. Deduct 5 points for missing loading indicators, 3 points for laggy interactions, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}