@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/legal-document-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 660,
-  "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 if possible. Please write code to implement a legal document management system where lawyers can upload, categorize, and retrieve various legal documents. The system should support document template generation, key clause extraction, full-text search, and document comparison functions. The system needs to provide strict access control, record document operation logs, and include features for document expiration reminders and automatic archiving.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the document upload and storage functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements secure file uploading with proper validation (file type, size limitations, virus scanning), storage with encryption at rest, and appropriate file organization. Check for metadata extraction upon upload to facilitate categorization. Score 0 if no upload functionality exists, 5 if basic upload exists without security measures, and 10 if comprehensive secure upload with metadata extraction is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the document categorization and retrieval system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the taxonomy implementation for legal document categorization (by practice area, document type, client, status, etc.). Check if the retrieval system supports multiple access patterns (hierarchical navigation, filtering, sorting). Deduct 5 points if categorization is limited to basic folders, 3 points if dynamic taxonomy generation is missing, and 2 points if bulk categorization operations aren't supported. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the document template generation and key clause extraction features functioning correctly?",
-      "description": "Check if the template system can dynamically generate documents with variable substitution, conditional sections, and proper formatting. For clause extraction, verify NLP/ML techniques for identifying important legal clauses with proper highlighting and cross-referencing capabilities. Score 0 if neither feature exists, 5 if only basic templating exists without clause extraction, and 10 if both are fully implemented with advanced capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "How effective is the full-text search and document comparison implementation?",
-      "description": "Assess the search engine implementation (indexing strategy, query optimization, relevance ranking) and verify search features like fuzzy matching, Boolean operators, and faceted search. For document comparison, check for efficient diff algorithms, visual highlighting of differences, and version history tracking. Deduct 5 points if search lacks advanced operators, 3 points if comparison doesn't handle complex document structures, and 2 points if performance degrades with large documents. 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 duplicate uploads, corrupt files, search with no results, concurrent edits, 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-assisted document summarization 2. Legal risk analysis based on document content 3. Client collaboration portals 4. Integration with court e-filing systems). 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 search engines running in parallel) 2. Function modules unrelated to legal document management (e.g., built-in social media features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in a professional legal tool). 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 document processing/user management/security 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 legal software design principles: 1) Professional color scheme appropriate for legal context 2) Clean document preview and editing interfaces 3) Logical workflow organization with proper information hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for cluttered interfaces, 5 points for inconsistent design elements, and 5 points for poor readability of legal documents. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the security implementation comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the system implements: 1) Role-based access control with fine-grained permissions 2) Comprehensive audit logging of all document operations 3) Document expiration and archiving automation 4) Data encryption both in transit and at rest. Deduct 5 points if access controls are simplistic, 3 points if audit logs are incomplete, 5 points if document lifecycle management is missing, and 5 points for inadequate encryption implementation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/liangchibao-mini-program-with-photo-upload-and-backend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1227,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. The Liangchibao mini-program code needs to allow on-site photo uploads with measurement data annotations, and special areas require text notes. Users publish measurement orders that staff members can accept and manage. There should also be backend management functionality. Please provide the complete detailed code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the photo upload and measurement annotation system complete?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements the complete photo upload flow including camera access permissions, compression, preview, and upload. Check if the code provides an intuitive interface for adding measurement annotations (like lengths, areas) directly on photos. Verify if annotations can be visually represented (lines, markers) with measurement data (values, units). Score 0 if basic upload is missing, 5 if upload works but annotations are limited, and 10 if the complete system with visual measurement tools is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the special area text note function properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether users can mark special areas on photos and add text notes to these specific regions. Check if the implementation includes: 1) Area selection tools (rectangular/freeform), 2) Text input mechanism tied to the selected area, 3) Visual representation showing the connection between notes and areas. Deduct 3 points if area selection is imprecise, 5 points if notes aren't visually linked to areas, and 3 points if text formatting options are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the order publishing and management functions complete?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements the complete workflow for users to create, publish and track measurement orders. Verify if the system includes order parameters (location, requirements, deadline, pricing), status tracking, and notification mechanisms. For staff-side functionality, confirm if order acceptance, status updates, and completion reporting are implemented. Deduct 5 points if the workflow has gaps, 3 points if notification system is missing, and 3 points if order history/tracking is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the backend management system functional and comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the backend management system includes essential components: 1) User management (customers and staff), 2) Order oversight and intervention capabilities, 3) Data analytics and reporting, 4) System configuration options. Check if appropriate access controls and permission levels are implemented. Deduct 3 points for each missing major component, and 5 points if the admin interface lacks proper security controls. 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 upload failures, network interruptions, invalid measurement inputs, permission denials, 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-assisted measurement suggestions, 2. Augmented reality measurement tools, 3. Voice annotations for measurements, 4. Real-time collaboration between users and staff). 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 photo capture mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to measurement or order 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 business logic/view/data persistence layers), component reusability, and WeChat Mini Program best practices. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if WeChat Mini Program lifecycle events are mishandled. 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 photo manipulation, 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/line-inspection-app-uniapp-javascript.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 758,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable. Help me design a line inspection application with a frontend implemented in UniApp and a backend developed in JavaScript. The app should allow users to upload inspection photos and submit issues encountered during the inspection process.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the UniApp frontend architecture properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes proper UniApp component structure, page navigation, lifecycle hooks, and responsive layout. Check for proper use of conditional rendering, data binding, and event handling within the Vue-based framework. Score 0 if fundamental UniApp structure is missing, 5 if basic functionality exists but lacks optimization for multiple platforms, and 10 if the code demonstrates cross-platform compatibility (iOS, Android, H5) with adaptive designs.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the photo capture and upload functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Examine the implementation of device camera access, photo processing (compression, EXIF data handling, image optimization), and multi-photo upload queue management. Verify the code manages upload progress indicators, retry mechanisms on failure, and proper error handling. Deduct 4 points if image compression is missing, 3 points if upload progress tracking is not implemented, and 3 points if there's no offline photo storage for later upload. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the inspection issue submission system comprehensively designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides form validation for issue reporting, categorization capabilities, severity level assignment, location tagging (GPS coordinates), and association with uploaded photos. Check for draft saving functionality and submission confirmation. Deduct 3 points if geolocation is not implemented, 4 points if the relationship between photos and issues is poorly managed, and 3 points if validation is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the backend JavaScript implementation secure and efficient?",
-      "description": "Assess the backend code for proper authentication (JWT implementation), file storage security, input sanitization, and RESTful API design. Verify that the backend includes rate limiting, proper error handling with meaningful status codes, and logging capabilities. Deduct 3 points for missing authentication, 3 points for unsecured file uploads, 2 points for SQL injection vulnerabilities, and 2 points for improper error handling. 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 interruption, photo upload failure, form submission errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should handle edge cases like device permission denials, low storage warnings, and offline mode operations. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average robustness, 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. Voice-to-text for issue descriptions 2. Automated issue categorization using image recognition 3. AR markers for spatial reference 4. Offline operation mode with synchronization). 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. Duplicate implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple photo processing methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to inspection tasks 3. Unnecessarily complex animations or effects that affect performance on mobile devices. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core inspection 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 UI components, business logic, and API services), component reusability, and build/deployment configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 3 points if there's excessive component coupling; deduct 2 points if there's no environment configuration for development/production. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows mobile-first design principles: 1) Appropriate touch target sizes (minimum 44×44px) 2) Clear visual hierarchy with proper contrast ratios 3) Consistent design language across all screens 4) Proper form factor adaptation for various device sizes. Deduct 3 points for poor tap target sizing, 3 points for inconsistent design elements, and 4 points for layouts that break on different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the app's interactions follow mobile UX best practices: 1) Response to user actions within 100ms 2) Clear loading states for network operations 3) Intuitive form navigation and submission process 4) Smooth transitions between app sections. Deduct 3 points for sluggish photo upload previews, 3 points for confusing navigation patterns, and 4 points for unclear feedback during inspection submission. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/login-registration-list-view-interfaces.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1589,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create three interfaces: one for login, one for registration, and one for a list view.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the login interface properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the login interface includes all necessary elements: username/email field, password field with masking, remember me option, forgot password link, and submit button. Check for client-side validation of inputs (format checking, required fields). Verify that the interface handles authentication errors gracefully with appropriate user feedback. Score 0 if missing core elements, 5 if basic implementation only, 10 if fully implemented with validation and error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the registration form complete and secure?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the registration form includes all standard fields (username, email, password, confirm password), implements proper client-side validation (password strength requirements, email format validation, matching passwords), and provides clear feedback for validation errors. Check for terms of service agreement, privacy policy acknowledgment, and CAPTCHA/anti-bot measures. Deduct 3 points for each missing validation feature, 5 points if password security measures are inadequate. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the list view functional and well-designed?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the list view properly displays data with consistent formatting, includes essential features like sorting, filtering, and pagination, and handles both empty states and data loading states. Check if the list items have appropriate actions (view details, edit, delete). Deduct 3 points if pagination is missing, 3 points if sorting/filtering is absent, and 4 points if the empty/loading states aren't handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is navigation between interfaces smooth and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Check whether users can navigate seamlessly between login, registration, and list views. Verify the presence of navigation elements (buttons, links) in logical positions, consistent navigation patterns, and proper state management when switching views. Inspect for breadcrumbs or other orientation indicators. Deduct 3 points for each disconnected interface, 5 points for confusing navigation paths. 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 data, network issues, authentication failures) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like form validation errors, session timeouts, and unexpected server responses. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average robustness, 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 experience (e.g., 1. Social login integration 2. Dark/light mode toggle 3. Responsive design for mobile devices 4. Animations for transitions between views). 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 validation systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core interfaces (e.g., unnecessary sidebars or widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations or unnecessary API calls). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components, services, and utilities), component reusability, and code organization. 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 no build process or dependency management is evident. 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 form field, 5 points for inconsistent styling across interfaces, and 5 points for poor alignment of elements. 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) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear focus states for form inputs and buttons. Deduct 5 points for forms without submission feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between interfaces, and 5 points for inaccessible interface elements (poor tab navigation, missing focus indicators). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/login-registration-page-with-overlay-switch.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1413,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure to ensure that the generated code is executable and displayable. I have implemented a switching effect for a login/registration page where when a user clicks on the login or registration button, an overlay appears containing a form where the user can enter their username and password, then click the submit button to login or register. When the user clicks the return button, the overlay is hidden, and the login or registration form is displayed in the main area. This effect can improve user experience, making it more convenient for users to login or register. Please implement the above code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the login/registration switching effect fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code properly implements the switching mechanism between login and registration forms with overlay functionality. Verify that clicking on login/registration buttons shows the appropriate overlay with form, and clicking return hides the overlay displaying the form in the main area. Score 0 if the switching effect isn't implemented, 5 if only basic toggling is present, and 10 if smoothly transitions between states with proper visibility control.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are form input validations properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes client-side validation for username/password fields (minimum length, required fields, password complexity, etc.). Check for real-time validation feedback as users type. Deduct 3 points if basic validation is missing, 2 points if validation exists but without user feedback, and 5 points if there's no validation at all. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the form submission handling implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Review whether form submission prevents default behavior and includes proper event handling. Check if there's mock API integration or preparation for backend communication. Deduct 5 points if form submission isn't handled properly, 3 points if there's no feedback after submission, and 3 points if there's no error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the overlay functionality properly implemented with accessibility considerations?",
-      "description": "Examine if the overlay properly covers the main content, has appropriate z-index management, and includes accessibility features (focus trapping, escape key to close, screen reader compatibility). Deduct 3 points for missing keyboard navigation, 3 points for improper focus management, and 4 points for inaccessible overlay controls. 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 form submission with empty fields, rapid toggling between forms, browser resizing, 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. Password strength indicator 2. Social media login options 3. Remember me functionality 4. Password visibility toggle). 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 event listeners for the same action) 2. Function modules unrelated to login/registration (e.g., unnecessary widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/validation/event handling), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation of concerns. 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 form design (clear labels, properly sized inputs, consistent styling). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for misaligned form elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the transition effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Form switching animation duration between 200-400ms 2) Clear visual feedback for button clicks and form submission 3) Smooth overlay appearance/disappearance. Deduct 5 points for jarring transitions, 3 points for missing hover states on interactive elements, and 5 points for inconsistent animation timing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/logistics-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 498,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. ======== Role ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You have been given a software development requirement description and are required to generate project code according to these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code that is fully annotated with simple, easy-to-understand language, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== Output Rules ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, do not omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirement involves external API access or needs to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide mock data\n\n======== Project Requirements ========\nPlease write code to implement a logistics management system where administrators can track cargo transportation status, manage transport vehicles and driver information; customers can log in to view their cargo status and transportation logs.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core logistics tracking system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements cargo tracking functionality with features like real-time status updates, location tracking, and delivery milestone recording. Check if the system maintains a complete audit trail of all cargo movements and status changes.Award 0 points if cargo tracking is missing, 5 points if basic tracking exists but lacks real-time capabilities, 10 points if the implementation includes comprehensive tracking with timestamps, location data, and status history.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the vehicle and driver management system complete?",
-      "description": "Review whether the system allows for comprehensive management of transport vehicles (registration, maintenance schedules, availability status) and driver information (profiles, licenses, schedules, performance metrics). Check if there are functions for assigning vehicles to drivers and routes.Award 0 points if these management functions are absent, 5 points if only basic CRUD operations are implemented, 10 points if the system includes comprehensive management with scheduling, availability tracking, and assignment algorithms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the user authentication and role-based access control implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system properly implements separate authentication flows for administrators and customers, with appropriate role-based access control. Verify if security measures like password hashing, session management, and protection against common attacks are implemented.Award 0 points if authentication is missing, 5 points if basic login exists but lacks proper role separation or security measures, 10 points if the system implements comprehensive and secure authentication with proper access control.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the customer interface for tracking cargo implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if customers can log in to view their cargo status with features like historical transportation logs, current location, estimated delivery times, and notification capabilities. Check if the interface is user-friendly and provides clear visualization of cargo movements.Award 0 points if customer tracking interface is absent, 5 points if basic viewing exists but lacks interactive features, 10 points if the implementation includes comprehensive tracking visualization, search functionality, and notification systems.",
-      "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, authentication errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases.Award 10 points for comprehensive error handling and recovery mechanisms, 5 points for average robustness with some error handling, 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
-      "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. Predictive ETAs using historical data 2. Mobile-responsive design with push notifications 3. Interactive maps showing cargo routes 4. Weather integration showing potential delivery delays).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 update cargo status) 2. Function modules unrelated to logistics management (e.g., built-in games or unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy 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 business logic/view/data access layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for use of design patterns, code reusability, and maintainability.Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the 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) 4) Intuitive navigation and information 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) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance 4) Intuitive data visualization for logistics information.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast scrolling or transitions, 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": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/low-voltage-equipment-inventory-management-qr-excel.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1039,
-  "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. Write a computer program for managing the inventory of low-voltage engineering equipment through QR code generation and Excel import/export functionality.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the QR code generation functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately generates QR codes for equipment items with proper error handling and configuration options. Check if the QR codes contain essential inventory information (ID, name, location, status) and if the implementation supports different QR code formats and densities. Score 0 if QR functionality is absent, 5 if basic QR generation exists but lacks configuration options, and 10 if the implementation is robust with customization features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Excel import/export functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of Excel file handling. The code should support bidirectional data transfer (import and export), handle various Excel formats (.xlsx, .xls, .csv), and include validation mechanisms for imported data. Deduct 3 points if only one direction is supported, 3 points if data validation is missing, and 2 points if the code doesn't handle Excel formatting properly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the inventory data model well-designed and implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the data model covers essential equipment attributes (ID, name, type, location, purchase date, maintenance history, current status). Assess whether the model supports relationships between items (e.g., components of larger equipment) and includes proper data validation. Deduct 3 points for missing critical attributes, 3 points for inadequate validation, and 4 points if the model doesn't support relationships between inventory items. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the integration between QR code scanning and inventory management seamless?",
-      "description": "Analyze how QR code scanning integrates with the inventory system. The code should handle scan events, update inventory records accordingly, and provide error handling for failed scans or unrecognized codes. Deduct 3 points if scan processing is unreliable, 3 points if the update mechanism isn't transactional, and 4 points if there's no scan history or audit trail. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles exceptions appropriately (file not found, corrupted Excel files, invalid QR codes, database connection issues). Check for input validation, security measures against injection attacks, and graceful degradation during failures. Code with strong robustness should provide meaningful error messages and recovery mechanisms, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if exceptions aren't handled properly, 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 inventory management experience (e.g., 1. Real-time equipment status visualization 2. Automated maintenance scheduling based on usage patterns 3. Mobile responsive design for field operations). 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. Duplicate code for similar functions (e.g., multiple Excel parsing implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to inventory management (e.g., built-in email client) 3. Excessive features that negatively impact performance. 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 UI, business logic, and data access layers), appropriate design patterns, unit test coverage, and documentation quality. Deduct 3 points if global state pollution is found, 3 points if the code duplication rate exceeds 20%, and 4 points if documentation is inadequate or missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows professional design principles: 1) Clean and consistent layout with proper alignment 2) Appropriate color scheme that enhances readability 3) Clear visual hierarchy emphasizing important elements. Deduct 3 points for cluttered interfaces, 3 points for poor contrast affecting readability, and 4 points for inconsistent styling across screens. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the user workflow intuitive and efficient?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the application provides an intuitive workflow for inventory management tasks: 1) Logical task progression with minimal clicks 2) Clear feedback for user actions within 100ms 3) Efficient batch operations for common tasks. Deduct 3 points for each workflow requiring excessive steps, 3 points for missing visual feedback on operations, and 4 points if common inventory tasks require complex navigation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/manage-member-list-webpage-fix.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1017,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for display whenever possible. Modify: Place the \"Edit Member List\" button after the \"Import List\" button. Issue: After editing the member list and clicking the \"Save Changes\" button, the window cannot be closed. Generate complete webpage code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the 'Edit Member List' button placement correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that the 'Edit Member List' button appears after the 'Import List' button in the DOM structure and visual layout. Check both the HTML order and any CSS positioning that might affect the visual order. Give 10 points if correctly placed, 5 points if visually correct but with improper DOM structure, and 0 points if incorrectly placed.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the modal window closing functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the 'Save Changes' button correctly triggers the modal closing mechanism. The modal should completely disappear from view and be removed from the active DOM when clicked. Verify event listeners are properly attached and that any backdrop/overlay elements are also hidden or removed. Award 10 points if it works flawlessly, 5 points if it visually disappears but remains in DOM, and 0 points if it doesn't close at all.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the member list editing functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the edit functionality allows adding new members, deleting existing ones, and modifying member information. The implementation should include input validation and proper state management. Award 10 points for full CRUD operations with validation, 7 points if basic editing works without validation, and 3 points if only partial editing capabilities exist.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the data persistence properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the changes made to the member list are properly saved and persisted (either to localStorage, sessionStorage, or prepared for server submission). The saved data should be retrievable after the modal is closed and reopened. Give 10 points for complete persistence with error handling, 5 points for basic persistence without error handling, and 0 points if changes are lost after closing the modal.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty input fields, special characters in names, duplicate entries, etc.) and provide friendly error messages 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 reordering of members 2. Real-time search/filtering 3. Bulk operations for multiple members). 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 data) 2. Function modules unrelated to member list management 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data model/view/controller layers), use of modern JavaScript practices, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variables are excessively used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if event listeners are not properly managed (potential memory leaks). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (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 transitions, 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": "easy"
-}