Sample
pyint-73865830712f-I03
Replace names with length-matched meaningful but unrelated identifiers
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.024 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.802 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 188 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 5.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 9.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.352 | 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. | 16021.371 | −528.705 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 461 | +184.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.203 | −6.305 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -341.74 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-341.74) = 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. | 462 | −15.322 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 418 | +13.721 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 418 | −9.171 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 460.92 | +6.033 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 86.177 | +0.586 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.055 | +0.404 |
| 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. | 86.974 | −0.019 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -3.697 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-3.697) = 0.024.
| Score | 0.802 |
|---|
| Score | 188 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is heavily obfuscated, making it nearly impossible to understand its actual purpose. Original Django field names have been replaced with meaningless terms like 'refreshSession', 'validateBalance', 'validateAccount', 'validateAddress', 'remoteScore', and 'finalMode'. This destroys clarity of intent and makes the reading flow completely unnatural. Many methods contain misleading names—for example, 'validateBalance' actually checks field existence, while 'createCache' actually deconstructs fields. Nesting is moderate but logical flow is completely obscured by poor naming. Import blocks are clean but overlong. The structure is technically valid but the semantics are hidden, making it appear like tangled code. Even comments reference concepts ('swap', 'on_delete') that no longer align with variable names. Method names suggest one action but perform another, violating action granularity expectations. While some functions are reasonably flat, the overall readability is severely compromised by the systematic renaming of core concepts, forcing readers to reverse-engineer meaning from structure alone.
Run 2
The code has some good structural elements like logical grouping of imports, clear class definition, and consistent method organization, but it is severely hampered by obfuscated naming throughout. Parameter and variable names like 'map', 'recentKey', 'remoteScore', 'finalMode', 'defaultSession', 'currentAccount', 'backupCount', and 'localPath' in __init__ appear to be random words with no semantic meaning, making it nearly impossible to understand what each parameter represents. Methods also have misleading names: 'checkBalance', 'validateBalance', 'store', 'refreshSession', 'validateMessage', 'createCache' - none of which clearly indicate their actual purpose. The nesting level is generally acceptable with only 2-3 levels in most methods. Code length is reasonable for a Django field implementation. Reading flow is disrupted by the constant need to map meaningless names to actual functionality. Action granularity is mostly good with one operation per line. The docstrings and comments are helpful but can't compensate for the core naming problem that obscures the code's intent.
Run 3
This code is extremely difficult to read due to heavily obfuscated naming throughout. Parameters and variables like 'map', 'recentKey', 'remoteScore', 'finalMode', 'sharedWindow', 'defaultSession', 'currentAccount', 'backupCount', 'localPath', 'validateBalance', 'refreshSession', etc. have no semantic relationship to their actual purposes (e.g., to_field, on_delete, db_constraint, related_name). Method names like validateRequest, refreshBalance, createCache, updateMessage are misleading and unrelated to their functions. While the overall structure mimics Django's ForeignKey implementation, the renaming destroys clarity of intent and makes the code nearly impossible to follow without extensive cross-referencing. Nesting is moderate but obfuscated by confusing variable names. Code length is reasonable, but action granularity suffers due to deeply obfuscated compound expressions. Reading flow is unnatural and disorienting. Fundamental naming principles are violated so severely that the code retains almost no readability despite logical organization underneath.
Run 1
Code Structure: Responsibilities are separated into methods, with consistent decorators and formatting, but the large class exposes many poorly distinguished operations. Nesting: Mostly moderate, with useful early returns; validation and deconstruction contain deeper conditional blocks. Clarity of intent: The main weakness is misleading, generic naming such as validateBalance, refreshSession, map, and age, which obscures relationship-field semantics. Comments and docstrings help, but sometimes reference names different from the actual methods. Code length: Many small methods are concise, although the extensive class, verbose error construction, and repetitive validation increase reading effort. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, and multiline expressions are formatted clearly. Reading flow: Related methods are reasonably grouped, but tracing dependencies through ambiguously named properties is difficult. The reverse_join keyword passed to a method accepting remoteStatus also interrupts understanding. Overall, clean formatting and reasonable decomposition are undermined by confusing naming and inconsistent interfaces.
Run 2
1. Code Structure: The class is logically divided into initialization, validation, relation resolution, and descriptor setup, but misleading method names obscure that organization. 2. Nesting: Mostly manageable, with early returns reducing depth; some validation and deconstruction branches are more nested. 3. Clarity of intent: The main weakness is arbitrary names such as validateBalance, refreshSession, and remoteScore, which poorly describe relation-specific responsibilities. Comments and docstrings help, but sometimes reference names that differ from the implemented API. 4. Code length: Reasonable for the functionality, though the large class and extensive imports increase reading effort. 5. Action granularity: Generally strong, with one operation per statement and clearly formatted multiline calls and expressions. 6. Reading flow: Formatting is consistent and methods are separated cleanly, but tracing similarly named properties and methods is difficult. The reverse_join keyword passed to validateResult, whose parameter is remoteStatus, also interrupts comprehension. Overall, sound formatting and modularity are undermined by pervasive semantic naming problems.
Run 3
Code Structure: Well-separated methods, properties, and validation routines provide logical organization. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with early returns, though uniqueness checks and error construction introduce moderately nested sections. Clarity of intent: The main weakness is misleading, inconsistent naming: methods such as validateWindow and createCache perform unrelated operations, while variables such as remoteScore and defaultBalance obscure field semantics. Comments and docstrings partially compensate. Code length: Many small methods are concise, but the overall class is lengthy, with verbose error construction and a large import block containing apparently unused imports. Action granularity: Generally one action per line, with readable multiline calls and comprehensions. Reading flow: Formatting and grouping are consistent, but arbitrary names force repeated cross-referencing. References to original method names in docstrings and the reverse_join keyword mismatch further disrupt understanding.