Sample
pyint-dc4ee8ba69d4-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.678 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.378 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 33 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 16 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 16.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.641 | 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. | 1600.806 | −52.827 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 45 | +18 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.625 | −6.938 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -32.895 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-32.895) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 45 | +0.819 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| 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. | 70.891 | +0.663 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 46 | −0.592 |
| 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. | 44.806 | +0.216 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.1 | −0.026 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.744 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.744) = 0.678.
| Score | 0.378 |
|---|
| Score | 33 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is generally readable with clear structure: imports are organized, class methods are logically named, and the AppGroup class has a clear purpose. The nested decorator functions add one level of nesting but remain manageable. Intent is clear through descriptive names and docstrings (though docstrings are absent—type hints help). The code is concise without unnecessary verbosity. However, there are minor issues: inconsistent use of super() (super(AppGroup, self) vs super()), trailing whitespace, and the decorator pattern could be slightly clearer with explicit return type annotations. Overall, the code is well-structured and easy to follow for someone familiar with Flask and Click patterns.
Run 2
The code is mostly readable with clear structure and appropriate use of type hints. The AppGroup class extends click.Group in a logical manner, with methods that follow consistent patterns. Nesting is minimal, limited to decorator closures which are standard for Click applications. Intent is clearly conveyed through method names and docstrings (though docstrings could be more explicit). The code is concise without being too terse. Action granularity is generally good - one main action per line in most cases. Reading flow is natural, with imports organized sensibly. Minor deductions: inconsistent use of super() (mixing 'super(AppGroup, self)' with 'super()'), and some minor formatting inconsistencies like trailing whitespace. The decorator pattern, while necessary for Click integration, adds a small cognitive load but is implemented cleanly. Overall, this is solid, maintainable code that would be easy for experienced Python developers to understand.
Run 3
The code is generally well-structured and readable. It uses clear type hints and docstrings are implied through clean naming. The AppGroup class is logically organized with two methods that follow similar patterns, making the code predictable. Nesting is minimal—only one level of function decorator inside each method. The intent is clear: extending click.Group to support Flask's app context. The code is concise, though the decorator functions add some length but are necessary. Each logical action is on its own line, improving readability. The reading flow is natural: imports are grouped, class definition is clear, and methods are ordered logically. Minor deductions: no explicit docstrings for method parameters, and the unused imports (os, re, sys, etc.) suggest broader context not shown here. The with_appcontext reference is undefined in this snippet, which could confuse readers without the full file. Overall, well-written click extension code.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class cleanly separates command and group customization, but numerous unused imports clutter this snippet. Nesting: The nested decorator is appropriate and shallow, with only one conditional. Clarity of intent: Method names, type annotations, and with_appcontext convey purpose, although wrap_for_ctx is abbreviated and the context-wrapping dependency is not defined or imported here. Code length: The methods are concise, but the import block and excessive blank lines add unnecessary length. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action; the chained decorator invocation is slightly denser. Reading flow: The methods follow a natural setup, delegation, and return sequence, while inconsistent whitespace and the explicit super(AppGroup, self) call add minor friction.
Run 2
Code Structure: The class logically separates command decoration from subgroup creation, though many unrelated imports clutter the snippet. Nesting: Shallow nesting, with only a nested decorator and a single conditional, is easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations communicate purpose, but missing docstrings and the externally defined with_appcontext leave some behavior implicit. Code length: The implementation is concise, although unused imports and excessive blank space add noise. Action granularity: Each statement performs a distinct action; the chained superclass command invocation is slightly dense. Reading flow: Control flow is natural and predictable, but inconsistent whitespace and unnecessarily split short signatures interrupt scanning.
Run 3
Code Structure: The class logically separates command decoration from subgroup creation, although numerous unused imports distract from this snippet. Nesting: Shallow nesting, with one inner decorator and a simple conditional, is easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Method names, type annotations, and the with_appcontext option communicate purpose, but the externally defined with_appcontext function and absent docstrings leave some context implicit. Code length: The methods are concise, while the extensive import block and redundant blank space add unnecessary length. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action; chained command construction remains manageable. Reading flow: Execution flows naturally from option extraction to decorator creation and return, then subgroup configuration. Inconsistent whitespace and the explicit super(AppGroup, self) invocation slightly interrupt an otherwise clean presentation.