Sample
pyint-cc99054c29af-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.694 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.469 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 10 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 13.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.623 | 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. | 507.399 | −16.744 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.899 | −7.348 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 16 | +6.4 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -8.823 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-8.823) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 62.824 | +1.004 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 16 | +0.47 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 15.812 | −0.189 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 16 | −0.184 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.092 | +0.052 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.817 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.817) = 0.694.
| Score | 0.469 |
|---|
| Score | 10 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is generally clear and follows standard patterns for exception class definitions. Structure is logical, with a single class and three methods. Nesting is minimal. The purpose is evident: a custom JSON decode error that inherits from two base exception classes. However, readability is slightly reduced by the multiple blank lines after the class and method declarations, which break visual flow. The multiple-inheritance __init__ calls are necessary but require care to understand; a brief comment explaining why both bases are initialized explicitly would improve clarity. Action granularity is fine—each line does one thing. Length is appropriate. Overall, it's readable but could be slightly improved with cleaner formatting and a clarifying comment.
Run 2
The code is generally clear and follows a logical class inheritance structure. It defines a custom exception combining two base exceptions, with explicit multi-inheritance and method definitions. The `__init__` method has a clear purpose but is slightly ambiguous due to multiple `__init__` calls and forwarded arguments. The `__reduce__` method is concise but somewhat unclear without context about serialization intent. Nesting is flat, and action granularity is acceptable, though the `__init__` has multiple actions spread across two lines. The reading flow is mostly natural, but the missing docstrings and unexplained double initialization reduce clarity. Overall, the code is readable but could benefit from comments or docstrings explaining the dual inheritance and serialization behavior.
Run 3
The code has a clear purpose but suffers from several readability issues. The class structure is minimal but the import section includes unused imports (BaseHTTPError, TYPE_CHECKING), which adds noise. The methods have empty docstring placeholders (blank lines after def), suggesting incomplete documentation. While the code is concise and actions are mostly one per line, the intent of __reduce__ and the dual inheritance initialization is not immediately obvious without additional context. The nesting is flat and the reading flow is natural given the small size, but the lack of comments or docstrings explaining why both exception classes are inherited and how __reduce__ is used reduces clarity. Overall, it's readable for an experienced Python developer but could be more self-explanatory.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into initialization and serialization methods, though InvalidJSONError is not defined or imported in the snippet. Nesting: Minimal nesting makes the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: Names and type annotations convey an exception compatibility wrapper, but the dual initialization and explicit __reduce__ delegation would benefit from brief explanations. Code length: Concise overall, with unnecessary blank lines and unused TYPE_CHECKING and BaseHTTPError imports adding clutter. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action. Reading flow: Imports followed by the class and its methods form a natural sequence, slightly disrupted by excessive whitespace and the missing base-class context.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports and a small exception class are logically organized, although InvalidJSONError is not defined or imported in the snippet, and several imports are unused. Nesting: Shallow, with only methods inside a class. Clarity of intent: Names indicate a JSON decoding exception, but the dual initialization and delegated serialization lack explanations. Code length: Concise overall, though excessive blank lines add visual noise. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action, making individual operations easy to follow. Reading flow: The progression from imports to initialization to serialization is natural, but unexplained inheritance interactions and missing context interrupt understanding.
Run 3
Code Structure: Imports and a small exception class are logically organized, though InvalidJSONError is not defined or imported in the snippet, and two imports are unused. Nesting: Minimal nesting makes the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: Names suggest a compatibility wrapper for JSON decoding errors, but the dual initialization and explicit __reduce__ delegation lack explanations. Code length: Concise overall, with unnecessary blank lines adding visual noise. Action granularity: Each statement performs one distinct action. Reading flow: Imports, class declaration, initialization, and serialization follow a natural order, but missing context and excessive whitespace slightly interrupt comprehension.