Sample
pyint-9e92bbef88f9-I04
Replace names with deterministic minifier-style shortest identifiers
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.113 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.583 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 73 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 4.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 10.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.423 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 5686.409 | −187.651 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 270 | +108 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.358 | −6.537 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -77.318 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-77.318) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 271 | −8.559 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 196 | +6.042 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 196 | −4.077 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 269.92 | +3.363 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 85.956 | +0.582 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.046 | +0.495 |
| Identifier layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from left to right. It measures spatial frequency, not the meaning of the names. | 85.937 | +0.025 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -2.057 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.057) = 0.113.
| Score | 0.583 |
|---|
| Score | 73 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is severely hampered by intentionally obfuscated naming (single letters like d, e, f, w, a, b, c, L, M, N) that obscures the purpose of parameters, variables, and methods. While the class structure is logical and the docstrings are clear, the implementation details are incomprehensible without detective work. Nesting is minimal and action granularity is reasonable (one operation per line), but the code length is excessive due to cryptic variable names forcing mental mapping. The reading flow is broken because readers must constantly cross-reference the __slots__ ordering and decoder-ring letter assignments to understand what each line does. The Attribute class's public API is somewhat documented, but private helpers and constructor parameters lack semantic clarity, making maintenance and review unnecessarily difficult despite the straightforward logic underneath.
Run 2
This code is severely unreadable. The use of single-letter variable names (d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N) completely obscures the meaning of parameters and locals. There is no logical naming convention, making it nearly impossible to infer intent. The __init__ method accepts 19 positional parameters with no descriptive names, and the classmethod 'a' is equally cryptic. Nesting is moderate but combined with obfuscated names and unexplained magic values it is impenetrable. While docstrings are present, they do not compensate for the lack of semantic naming. The code length is excessive given the obfuscation, and reading flow is broken by constant mental translation of letters to imagined meanings. Action granularity is acceptable per line but meaningless due to naming.
Run 3
The code is extremely unreadable due to deliberate obfuscation of variable names, parameters, and methods. Instead of descriptive names like 'name' or 'alias', it uses single letters (d, e, f, g, h) and meaningless method names (a, b, c). This makes the purpose of each argument and operation ambiguous and requires constant cross-referencing with documentation. The class has good documentation and logical structure with slots and methods grouped, and nesting is flat, but these positives are negated by the cryptic naming. Actions are mostly one per line, but reading flow is severely disrupted by having to map letters to meanings. Code length is reasonable, but readability collapses due to lack of clear intent and absurd parameter naming.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class is logically divided into initialization, copying, serialization, and attribute-setting methods, but slot-order dependencies and the apparent mismatch between _setattrs and method c complicate understanding. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with manageable conditionals and loops. Clarity of intent: Descriptive slot names, comments, and docstrings help, but single-letter parameters, variables, and method names severely obscure behavior and positional argument mappings. Code length: Repetitive initialization and extensive documentation increase length; much is justified, though awkward wrapping adds noise. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action, but tuple assignment and nested expressions occasionally require extra parsing. Reading flow: Method organization is natural, yet readers must repeatedly translate opaque identifiers and trace long positional calls, substantially disrupting flow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Methods separate initialization, copying, serialization, and assignment logically, but positional constructor arguments and slot-order dependencies create fragile coupling. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with straightforward conditionals and loops. Clarity of intent: Documentation, comments, and descriptive slot names help, but single-letter parameters, variables, and method names severely obscure meaning. The call to _setattrs despite the visible helper being named c also confuses readers. Code length: Generally reasonable for the functionality, though lengthy documentation and repetitive initialization increase scanning effort. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action; tuple unpacking and conditional expressions introduce modest density. Reading flow: Method organization is natural, but tracing anonymous arguments through a long constructor call and navigating awkward line wrapping frequently interrupts comprehension.
Run 3
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, copying, serialization, and attribute updates, but slot-order dependencies and long positional calls create coupling. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with modest conditionals and loops; multiline expressions add some visual complexity. Clarity of intent: Detailed documentation, descriptive slot names, and explanatory comments help, but single-letter parameters, variables, and methods severely obscure meaning. The call to _setattrs despite the visible update method being named c also interrupts understanding. Code length: Repetitive initialization and extensive documentation make the class lengthy, although most operations serve a distinct purpose. Action granularity: Generally one action per line, with a few compact tuple assignments and conditional expressions requiring additional interpretation. Reading flow: Method organization is natural, but tracing positional arguments, decoding anonymous identifiers, and navigating awkward line wrapping substantially increase reading effort.