E27 · Dorn/python/81

Full sample results

Scores

MethodScoreScaleDataset rank
(0–100)
GPT-6.1 Sol16.670–20; mean of three runs
73.8Δ 35.9
DeepSeek V4 Pro11.670–20; mean of three runs
51.4Δ 13.5
BTTF0.2890–1; higher is more readable
14.8Δ 23.1
Human3.131–5; original rating
37.9

Loading feature diagnosis…

Source code

GPT-6.1 Sol explanations

Run 1 · 17/20

Code Structure: Cohesive mixins group related assertions logically, though the opening line lacks context.

Nesting: Shallow loops and a single conditional keep the code easy to follow; recursion is explicit.

Clarity of intent: Descriptive class and method names communicate testing purposes, although legacy failUnless/failIf assertions and abbreviated names slightly reduce clarity.

Code length: Most methods are concise; assertTaskCopy contains a lengthy, repetitive checklist that could be grouped by property type.

Action granularity: Each statement performs one assertion or control-flow action, making individual checks easy to inspect.

Reading flow: Assertions progress naturally from properties to child and effort comparisons, but excessive blank lines, inconsistent whitespace, and the long ungrouped property sequence slightly interrupt readability.

Run 2 · 16/20

Code Structure: Mixins logically group related assertions, though the opening orphaned statement lacks context.

Nesting: Mostly flat, with only shallow conditionals and loops; recursion remains easy to follow.

Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and explicit field comparisons make the testing purpose clear, although orig is abbreviated and copy shadows a common name.

Code length: Generally concise, but assertTaskCopy contains a lengthy, repetitive sequence of assertions that could be grouped by purpose.

Action granularity: Each line performs one assertion or control-flow action; the wrapped assertion is readable.

Reading flow: Comparisons proceed predictably from task properties to child and effort copies, but excessive blank lines and inconsistent whitespace interrupt the flow.

Run 3 · 17/20

Code Structure: Related assertions are logically grouped into focused mixins, although the opening orphaned statement lacks context.

Nesting: Shallow loops and a single conditional keep the code easy to follow; recursion is explicit.

Clarity of intent: Descriptive class and method names communicate testing purposes clearly, though legacy failUnless/failIf calls and the parameter name copy slightly reduce clarity.

Code length: Mostly concise, but assertTaskCopy contains a long, repetitive sequence of field comparisons.

Action granularity: Each statement performs one assertion or control-flow action; the wrapped assertion remains readable.

Reading flow: Comparisons progress naturally from task properties to child and effort copies, but excessive blank lines and inconsistent whitespace interrupt visual continuity.

BTTF feature contributions

Score 0.289 / 1