@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/iot-platform-web-frontend-vue3-backend-microservice.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 794,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Pay attention to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. IoT Platform Web Frontend | Vue3 + Element Plus + ECharts (Data Visualization) | Backend Microservice API Layer | Spring Boot + Spring Cloud (API Gateway, Access Control)",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue3 component architecture properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the code follows Vue3 best practices: Composition API usage, reactive state management, lifecycle hooks integration, and proper component composition. Check for single-responsibility components and proper prop validation. Deduct 5 points if useSetup() is missing where beneficial; deduct 5 points if reactive() and ref() are misused; deduct 3 points if component hierarchy is unnecessarily deep (>4 levels). Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is Element Plus UI framework implementation optimal?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether Element Plus components are properly utilized: lazy loading of components, on-demand importing, theme customization, responsive layouts, and proper form validation. Check if UI components match the application's requirements without overengineering. Deduct 5 points for global imports that cause bundle bloat; deduct 3 points for inadequate form validation; deduct 5 points for inconsistent component styling. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are ECharts data visualizations effectively implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether ECharts visualizations are properly configured: responsive resizing, appropriate chart types for data representation, performance optimization for large datasets, and interactive features. Charts should provide meaningful insights into IoT data. Deduct 5 points if charts are not resizable; deduct 5 points for inappropriate chart types; deduct 3 points for missing tooltips or legends; deduct 5 points if real-time data updates aren't handled efficiently. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the API integration with Spring Boot backend properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the frontend-backend integration: proper API call patterns (Axios/Fetch), error handling, authentication token management, and response parsing. Check for RESTful practices and efficient data fetching strategies. Deduct 5 points for missing loading states; deduct 3 points for improper error handling; deduct 5 points for inefficient data fetching (no pagination/caching); deduct 5 points if authentication headers aren't properly managed. 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, invalid API responses, data validation errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like offline operation modes for IoT platforms. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average implementation, and 0 points if no exceptions are handled.",
-      "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 IoT platform experience (e.g., 1. Predictive analytics visualization 2. Custom dashboard builder 3. Device digital twins with 3D visualization 4. Real-time collaborative monitoring). 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 HTTP client wrappers) 2. Function modules unrelated to IoT monitoring (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Performance-heavy features that affect responsiveness (e.g., excessive real-time polling without throttling). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of concerns between data, presentation, and business logic), Pinia/Vuex state management patterns, unit test coverage with Vitest/Jest, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state is overused; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate exceeds 30%; deduct 5 points if there's no CI/CD configuration. 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) Consistent color scheme aligned with IoT platform purpose 2) Proper layout spacing (following the 8px grid system) 3) Professional typography system (readable metrics and data fonts). Deduct 3 points for cluttered dashboards, 5 points for color schemes that hinder data interpretation, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. 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 user experience standards: 1) Real-time IoT data updates without UI freezing 2) Transition animations for state changes under 300ms 3) Clear visual feedback for user actions. Deduct 5 points for laggy dashboard updates, 3 points for jarring transitions between views, and 5 points for confusing navigation paths. Check for skeleton screens during loading and optimistic UI updates. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/java-picture-book-library-borrowing-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 227,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable for demonstration. Create a Java-based picture book library borrowing system code, send me the complete source code that is not duplicated from online sources. Include web pages and layout elements. The quality should be at the graduation project level. The development tool is Eclipse.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Java-based core borrowing system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements essential functionalities: user management, book catalog, borrowing/returning process, and reservation system. Score 0 if the core functions are missing, 5 if only basic CRUD operations are implemented, and 10 if it includes advanced features like fine calculation, borrowing history tracking, and book status management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the database design and interaction properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the database schema design (appropriate tables for users, books, transactions), proper implementation of DAO/Repository pattern, and transaction management. Check for proper SQL query optimization and connection pooling. Deduct 5 points for missing transaction handling, 3 points for SQL injection vulnerabilities, and 2 points for inefficient query design. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the web interface implementation complete?",
-      "description": "Check if the web pages include all necessary views: login/registration page, book catalog display, book detail page, user profile, borrowing history, and administrative interfaces. Evaluate the use of appropriate Java web technologies (JSP, Servlet, JSF, or Spring MVC). Deduct 5 points if core pages are missing, 3 points if form validation is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the picture book presentation functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the system properly handles picture books with image displays, thumbnails generation, and preview capabilities. Check for image loading optimization and responsive display across devices. Score 10 for full implementation with lazy loading and image caching, 5 for basic image display without optimization, and 0 if images aren't properly handled or displayed.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, database connection failures, file handling 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. Book recommendation system based on borrowing history 2. QR code generation for quick borrowing 3. Email/SMS notification system). 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 authentication mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to library management (e.g., built-in games) 3. Resource-intensive features that affect performance (e.g., unnecessarily complex 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 MVC architecture, separation of concerns), unit test coverage, and build process configuration (Maven/Gradle). 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 dependency management and build scripts are missing or incomplete. 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 consistent principles) 3) Professional font system (appropriate sizing and hierarchy). 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) Form submission feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Page transition and loading indicators 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring page reloads, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/javafx-real-time-table-update-voice-announcements.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 364,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. In JavaFX, when one client adds data to a table, other client pages should update in real-time to display the added data and provide voice announcements.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the JavaFX TableView implementation complete?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements the TableView with appropriate columns, data binding, and cell factories. Check if the table supports proper data sorting, filtering, and pagination. Score 0 if the TableView is not implemented, 5 if basic implementation without customization, and 10 if fully featured with proper styling and user interaction handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the real-time data synchronization mechanism implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a robust real-time communication system (WebSockets, RMI, or similar technology). Check if it handles connection establishment, message serialization/deserialization, and reconnection logic. The implementation should include proper event listeners for data changes. Deduct 5 points if synchronization has noticeable delay (>500ms), and 3 points if the connection management is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the voice announcement system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes a functional text-to-speech system that announces new data entries. Evaluate if the implementation uses appropriate JavaFX sound libraries or external TTS engines. Voice announcements should be clear, configurable (volume/speed/voice), and not interfere with the application's performance. Deduct 5 points if voice quality is poor, and 3 points if configuration options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the client-server architecture properly designed?",
-      "description": "Review the architecture design to ensure proper separation between client and server components. Check if the server handles concurrent client connections, maintains consistent data state across clients, and implements proper authentication/authorization. Evaluate if the application uses appropriate design patterns (MVC, observer pattern). Deduct 5 points for poor concurrency handling, and 3 points for inadequate error handling during communication. 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 disconnection, server unavailability, concurrent data modification conflicts, 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. Customizable notification sounds/voices 2. Visual indicators for newly added data 3. Client-specific filters that persist across updates). 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 communication methods (e.g., multiple notification systems running in parallel) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core requirements (e.g., excessive animation effects) 3. Resource-intensive features that affect performance (e.g., constant polling instead of event-based updates). 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/network 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 JavaFX design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows consistent principles) 3) Professional font system (readable font sizes, appropriate line heights). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Data updates appear without noticeable delay 2) Voice announcements are synchronized with visual updates 3) The UI remains responsive during updates and voice playback. Deduct 5 points for laggy updates, 3 points for voice announcements that disrupt the user experience, and 5 points for UI freezing during data operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/knowledge-base-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 628,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Develop a knowledge base management system where users can upload knowledge article files (supporting md, html formats) and add categories and tags to articles; knowledge base administrators (username: knowledgemgr, password: knowpass) can log into the system, manage knowledge articles, organize them by category or tag, and set access permissions for articles.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic knowledge base architecture properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code establishes a complete knowledge base system with proper model structure for articles, categories, tags, and users. Check if the data models include necessary fields (title, content, author, timestamps, format type) and relationships. Score 0 if core data models are missing, 5 if basic models exist but lack key relationships, and 10 if a complete data architecture with proper relationships is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the file upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system handles md and html file uploads correctly with proper validation, sanitization, and storage. Check if the code includes content type verification, file size limitations, and security measures against malicious uploads. Deduct 3 points if format validation is missing, 3 points if no security measures against XSS attacks are implemented, and 4 points if the upload process lacks error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the category and tag management systems functioning correctly?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code enables adding, editing, and deleting categories and tags, as well as assigning them to articles. The system should support hierarchical categories, batch operations, and article filtering by categories/tags. Deduct 3 points if hierarchical categories are not supported, 3 points if batch operations are missing, and 4 points if filtering functionality is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the authentication and permission system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements secure login functionality for administrators (username: knowledgemgr, password: knowpass), proper session management, and granular access control for articles. Check for password hashing, CSRF protection, and role-based permissions. Deduct 5 points if password security is weak, 3 points if session management is flawed, and 2 points if the permission system doesn't support article-level access control. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid uploads, authentication failures, concurrent access issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Full-text search with highlighting 2. Article version history tracking 3. Collaborative editing 4. AI-powered article recommendations). 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 knowledge base management (e.g., social networking 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/service/controller layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/laboratory-instrument-calibration-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 546,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Laboratory Instrument Calibration Management System\n\nYou are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please write code to implement a laboratory instrument calibration management system for managing precision instruments that require regular calibration. The system needs to record each instrument's basic information (instrument number, name, model, accuracy class, etc.), calibration cycle, and historical calibration records (calibration date, calibration institution, calibration results, certificate number, etc.). The system needs to display the most recent calibration date and the next calibration due date, and automatically send reminder notifications before calibration expires. Laboratory personnel (username lab-user, password 123456) can view the calibration status of all instruments and submit calibration requests. The metrology supervisor (username metrology, password 123456) reviews applications, arranges calibration plans, registers calibration results, and uploads scanned calibration certificates. System administrators (username admin, password 123456) can add/edit instrument information, set calibration cycles and reminder times, and generate calibration statistical reports. The system should also support calibration cost management functionality to record and track calibration expenditures for various instruments.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the instrument management functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete instrument database with all required fields (instrument number, name, model, accuracy class, etc.). Check if CRUD operations for instruments are properly implemented and secured. Score 0 if basic instrument management is missing, 5 if only basic fields are implemented, 10 if complete with advanced features like instrument categories, location tracking, and status indicators.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the calibration tracking system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system correctly records calibration cycles, calculates next due dates, maintains complete historical records, and properly links calibration certificates. Score 0 if calibration tracking is absent, 5 if basic tracking exists but has calculation issues, and 10 if the system includes comprehensive history, accurate date calculations, and proper certificate management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the reminder notification system functional?",
-      "description": "Check if the system includes an automatic notification mechanism triggered by approaching calibration due dates. Verify if it supports multiple notification methods (email, in-system alerts, etc.), customizable reminder periods, and escalation for overdue calibrations. Deduct 5 points if notifications are manual only, 3 points if only one notification channel is implemented. Full score for a robust, configurable notification system with confirmation tracking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the role-based access control system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the three required roles (lab user, metrology supervisor, admin) are correctly implemented with appropriate permissions for each function. Check for secure authentication, proper session management, and access restrictions. Deduct 5 points if any role is missing core functionality, 5 points for security vulnerabilities in authentication. Full score requires complete permission management with audit trails for sensitive operations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid date inputs, duplicate instrument numbers, certificate upload failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-based prediction of calibration drift 2. QR code generation for quick instrument information access 3. Dashboard with visual calibration status indicators). 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 notification systems with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to calibration management (e.g., a built-in chat system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations on critical paths). 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 database/business logic/view layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/laboratory-instrument-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 661,
-  "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. Implement a laboratory instrument management system where users can search for instruments through the frontend, view detailed parameters, and check current status (available, occupied, under maintenance). Administrators have the authority to add new instruments, update instrument information, and manage maintenance records.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is a complete instrument search system implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements comprehensive search functionality with multiple filters (e.g., by type, availability, location), auto-complete suggestions, and relevance sorting. Score 0 if no search is implemented, 5 if only basic keyword search exists, and 10 if advanced search with filters and sorting is fully implemented with proper indexing for performance.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the instrument detail view system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether detailed instrument information displays are implemented, including technical specifications, images, documentation links, usage history, and current status indicators. The parameters should be organized in collapsible sections with proper data validation. Score 0 if missing, 5 if basic information display only, and 10 if comprehensive with interactive elements and proper data formatting.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the instrument status management system complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system properly tracks and displays instrument status (available, occupied, under maintenance), includes status change timestamps, responsible personnel information, and estimated availability times. The status change mechanism should include appropriate validation and notification workflows. Deduct 5 points if history tracking is missing, and 3 points if status updates lack audit trails.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the administrator management interface fully functional?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the admin panel includes all required functionality: adding new instruments, updating information, managing maintenance records, and generating reports. Check for proper form validation, image uploads, and audit logging of all administrative actions. Deduct 5 points if batch operations are missing, and 3 points if the interface lacks confirmation dialogs for critical operations.",
-      "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, concurrent edits, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should have proper exception handling, input validation, and data consistency checks. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time equipment status visualization with floor maps 2. QR code generation for physical instrument tagging 3. Maintenance prediction algorithms based on usage patterns). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to edit the same information) 2. Function modules unrelated to instrument management (e.g., built-in chat that could be handled by external systems) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow page loading). 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 access/business logic/presentation layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/large-file-uploads-react-nodejs-mongodb.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 729,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for display. Create a basic functionality for large file uploads combining React, Node.js, and MongoDB for data portability.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the client-side file chunking mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the React code implements file chunking correctly, including optimal chunk size determination (typically 2-5MB), MD5/SHA hash calculation for file identification, and proper progress tracking. Check if the implementation handles large files (>1GB) without browser freezing. Score 0 if chunking is not implemented, 5 if basic chunking exists but with suboptimal performance, and 10 if all aspects are well-implemented with performance considerations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the server-side chunk reception and assembly mechanism complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the Node.js server properly handles chunk reception, validation, temporary storage, and final assembly. Check for concurrent chunk processing, validation of chunk order and integrity, and proper error handling during assembly. Deduct 5 points if chunk validation is missing, 3 points if no concurrent processing is implemented, and 2 points if temporary file management is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the upload resume functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements upload resumption after interruption by maintaining chunk state, implementing client-server negotiation to identify missing chunks, and providing recovery mechanisms. Verify that the solution works across page refreshes using local storage or IndexedDB. Deduct 5 points if state persistence is missing, 3 points if chunk verification is incomplete, and 2 points if the UI doesn't reflect resumable status. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the MongoDB integration for file metadata properly designed?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the MongoDB schema design for file metadata is properly implemented, including file versioning support, efficient querying capabilities, and metadata extraction. Check for appropriate indexing strategies and data validation. Deduct 5 points if the schema design is overly simplistic, 3 points if no indexes are defined, and 2 points if there's no metadata extraction from uploaded files. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common error scenarios such as network interruptions, server errors, disk space issues, malformed chunks, and duplicate uploads. Check for comprehensive error logging, user-friendly error messages, and graceful degradation. 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. Real-time file processing/analysis during upload 2. Intelligent upload speed optimization based on network conditions 3. Client-side encryption 4. Advanced file type detection/validation). 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 hash calculation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to file upload (e.g., excessive analytics) 3. Performance-impacting features (e.g., unnecessary re-renders in React components). 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/API layers), test coverage for critical functions (especially chunk processing), and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if environment configuration is hardcoded. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the upload interface follows modern design principles: 1) Clear visual progress indication with percentage and remaining time 2) Proper layout for file information and controls 3) Responsive design that works on different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for confusing progress indicators, and 5 points for non-responsive layouts. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the upload experience conforms to user expectations: 1) Immediate feedback when files are selected 2) Smooth progress updates without UI jank 3) Clear status changes for upload states (queued, uploading, completed, failed). Deduct 5 points for laggy UI during uploads, 3 points for misleading progress indicators, and 5 points for missing upload status notifications. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/leankit-core-functions-pyside6-software-development.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 995,
-  "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. Develop software with LeanKit's core functions and features using PySide6, and generate complete executable code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core Kanban board functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements essential LeanKit features including drag-and-drop cards, columns/lanes configuration, and work item visualization. Score 0 if the Kanban board is not implemented, 5 if only basic card display exists without drag functionality, and 10 if the implementation includes full drag-and-drop support, column/lane customization, and card state management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are work item management features properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate implementation of card creation, editing, deletion, with proper attributes (title, description, assignee, due date, priority, etc.). Check if cards support custom fields, attachments, and comments. Deduct 5 points if cards lack essential attributes, 3 points if history tracking is missing, and 2 points if bulk operations are not supported. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the workflow configuration system implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether users can define custom workflows with columns, sub-columns, and swim lanes. Check if the implementation includes work-in-progress limits, card filtering, and policy enforcement. Deduct 5 points if column/lane customization is missing, 3 points if WIP limits aren't implemented, and 3 points if workflow rules cannot be defined. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are analytics and reporting features included?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of LeanKit's analytics features such as cycle time, lead time metrics, cumulative flow diagrams, and distribution charts. Verify that the system tracks historical data for reporting. Deduct 5 points if no analytics are present, 3 points if only basic charts exist without historical data, and 3 points if export functionality 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 invalid input, concurrent operations, connection issues) 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 card prioritization 2. Team member workload visualization 3. Automated bottleneck detection). 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 card creation dialogs) 2. Function modules unrelated to Kanban/LeanKit (e.g., built-in games) 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 model/view/controller layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation in the PySide6 implementation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if proper error handling and logging are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the PySide6 UI 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 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 in the PySide6 implementation. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy drag-and-drop operations, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}