Sample
Replace names with length-matched meaningful but unrelated identifiers
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.405 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.918 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.496 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 6 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 16.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.837 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Loading feature diagnosis…
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.853 | −7.279 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 144.754 | −4.777 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 7 | +2.8 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -0.386 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-0.386) = 0.405.
| 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. | 59.875 | +1.129 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 8 | +0.753 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.024 | +0.713 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 7 | −0.495 |
| 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. | 6.705 | −0.316 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 60 | +0.164 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 2.416 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(2.416) = 0.918.
| Score | 0.496 |
|---|
| Score | 6 |
|---|
The code is well-structured and highly readable. It uses a clear import block with forward compatibility and type-checking support. Class definition is concise with a docstring that clearly states intent. Nesting is virtually nonexistent, and each import/logical action is on its own line. One minor deduction for lack of context: the class is empty but inherits from `RequestException`, and `CompatJSONDecodeError` import is not used in the shown snippet, making purpose slightly ambiguous without surrounding code. Overall, very clean.
The code is highly readable. It has a clear, logical structure with a concise import block and a single class definition. Nesting is nonexistent, and the intent is unambiguous: defining a custom HTTP error exception. Code length is minimal and appropriate, with each import on its own line and one action per line. The reading flow is natural, moving from imports to the class definition. Minor deductions for unused imports and lack of context for how the class integrates with the rest of the module, but overall it is clean, purposeful, and easy to understand.
The code is concise, well-structured, and clear in intent. It properly imports necessary components, including future annotations and type checking, and defines a custom exception class with a clear docstring. The nesting is flat, action granularity is appropriate, and the reading flow is natural. The main minor issues are the ambiguous generic 'Any' import and the slight redundancy in naming 'HTTPError' from two different sources, which could be confusing without context.
Code Structure: Imports precede a clearly defined exception class, giving the snippet a logical organization. Nesting: There is no unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: The class name and docstring clearly identify an HTTP exception, but RequestException is not defined or imported in the snippet, and several imports appear unused. Code length: The implementation is concise, although unused imports add clutter. Action granularity: Each import and declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: The code reads naturally from imports to class definition, though an additional blank line before the top-level class would improve conventional formatting.
Code Structure: Imports precede a clearly separated exception class, providing logical organization. Nesting: There is no unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: The class name and docstring clearly identify an HTTP exception, but RequestException is not defined or imported in the snippet, and several imports appear unused. Code length: The class is concise, though the unused imports add clutter. Action granularity: Each import and declaration occupies its own line, making individual actions easy to identify. Reading flow: The snippet reads naturally from imports to class definition, although grouping imports and adding another blank line before the top-level class would improve presentation.
Code Structure: Imports precede a clearly separated exception class, although RequestException is not defined or imported in the snippet. Nesting: Flat and easy to scan. Clarity of intent: The class name and docstring clearly indicate an HTTP exception, but unused imports and the unexplained base class obscure context. Code length: Very concise, though several imports appear unnecessary for the shown code. Action granularity: Each import and declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom organization, with minor friction from unused dependencies and only one blank line before the class.