Sample
pyint-b94c689d8e7b-I05
Rewrite eligible decimal integer literals in hexadecimal notation
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.831 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.261 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 17 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.621 | 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. | 578.587 | −19.093 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 23 | +9.2 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.597 | −6.895 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -7.918 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-7.918) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 86.917 | +0.598 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.05 | +0.46 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 24 | +0.187 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 22.784 | −0.091 |
| 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. | 86.958 | −0.018 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 21 | −0.011 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.592 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.592) = 0.831.
| Score | 0.261 |
|---|
| Score | 17 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is well-structured with clear separation of imports, class definition, and methods. It uses a frozen and slotted attrs class, which makes intent explicit and prevents runtime mutation. Nesting is minimal—only a single if-statements inside the __call__ method. The purpose is obvious from the class name and docstring. The __repr__ improves debugging. The only minor issue is that the __call__ method could have type hints for clarity, and the docstring is a bit redundant but acceptable. Overall, it is concise, readable, and follows idiomatic Python practices, earning a high readability score.
Run 2
The code is well-structured and readable. It has a clear purpose: defining a frozen validator class using attrs. The imports are organized, though only some are used in this snippet (likely part of a larger module). Nesting is shallow, with a single condition inside the __call__ method. Naming clearly conveys intent (_MinLengthValidator, min_length, value). The class is concise and avoids unnecessary verbosity. Action granularity is appropriate: the validation check, message formatting, and exception raising are each on separate lines. Reading flow is natural—imports, class definition, attributes, method, and repr follow a logical order. Minor deductions: the docstring is only a brief implementation note rather than a full explanation, and the __repr__ message could be slightly more descriptive. Overall, the code is highly readable and maintainable.
Run 3
The code demonstrates high readability. It is well-structured for its purpose as a validator class. Nesting is minimal, with a single conditional check inside the __call__ method. The intent is clear: enforce a minimum length constraint on a value. Code length is concise and appropriate, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. Action granularity is reasonable, with the length check and error message creation on separate lines for clarity. Reading flow is natural, from import statements to class definition and methods. The use of the @attrs decorator with frozen=True and slots=True shows modern Python practices. The docstring explaining why a callable class is used adds helpful context. Minor deductions could include the unusual import structure without blank lines between groups, but overall the code is clean, focused, and follows Python conventions well.
Run 1
Code Structure: The validator is logically organized into configuration, validation, and representation methods, though numerous unused imports add clutter. Nesting: A single conditional keeps the code flat and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and a clear error message make the minimum-length check obvious; the docstring explains the callable-class design rather than the validation behavior. Code length: The implementation is concise, with little unnecessary code beyond the unused imports. Action granularity: Each line performs one clear action. Reading flow: The class reads naturally from its minimum-length field through validation to representation, although an additional blank line before the top-level class would improve formatting.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports and a small validator class are logically organized, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Minimal nesting, with only one conditional inside a method. Clarity of intent: The class name, min_length attribute, comparison, and descriptive error message clearly communicate minimum-length validation; the __call__ docstring explains the class design rather than the method's behavior. Code length: The implementation is concise with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single clear action, and error-message construction is separated from raising the exception. Reading flow: The class progresses naturally from configuration to validation to representation. Minor formatting improvements, such as a blank line after imports, would improve readability.
Run 3
Code Structure: The validator is logically organized into configuration, validation, and representation methods, though numerous unused imports add clutter. Nesting: A single conditional keeps the code flat and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class and attribute names clearly communicate minimum-length validation; the __call__ docstring explains the class design rather than the method's behavior. Code length: The implementation is concise, with little unnecessary code beyond unused imports. Action granularity: Each statement performs a clear action, and separating message construction from raising the exception improves readability. Reading flow: The progression from the length constraint to validation and representation is natural, although additional spacing between imports and the class would improve visual separation.