Sample
pyint-7687d21c0e3f-I02
Shorten method, parameter, and local names without collisions
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.001 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.709 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.512 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 16 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.604 | 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. | 546.833 | −18.045 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 21 | +8.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.503 | −6.754 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -7.529 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-7.529) = 0.001.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 69 | +0.743 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.06 | +0.355 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 22 | +0.257 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 20.871 | −0.118 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 21 | −0.011 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.889 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.889) = 0.709.
| Score | 0.512 |
|---|
| Score | 16 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is well-structured with clear imports and a focused class definition. Nesting is minimal—only one conditional inside __call__. Intent is clear: _OptionalValidator wraps another validator and skips validation for None values. The code is concise and avoids unnecessary length. Action granularity is good, with one meaningful operation per line in the __call__ method. Reading flow is natural, from imports to class definition to method implementations. Minor deductions: the class name starts with underscore but is used as a public-facing optional wrapper, which could be slightly ambiguous; the __call__ method could include a type hint for return value; and the conditional early return is simple but could be slightly more explicit with a comment explaining why None is skipped. Overall, very readable code that follows clean Python conventions and logical organization.
Run 2
The code is well-structured and readable. It uses short, focused imports and defines a single, clear class with two concise methods. Nesting is minimal (one level in __call__). Intent is clear: wrapping another validator to allow None. The class-level attribute declaration and decorator usage are idiomatic for attrs-based code. Methods are short, and each line performs one logical action. The reading flow is natural: import, class definition, attribute, logic, representation. Minor deductions: the purpose of the contextmanager and re imports is unclear since they are unused in this snippet, and the __call__ logic is simple but slightly redundant. Overall, the code is clean and maintainable.
Run 3
The code is well-structured with clear separation of imports and a single class definition. The nesting is minimal, with only one level inside the __call__ method. Intent is clear: an optional validator that skips validation when the value is None. The code is concise—no unnecessary methods or boilerplate. Each line performs a single action, and the flow follows a natural order: imports, class decorator, attribute, __call__ logic, and repr. The use of attrs decorators and type hints contributes to readability, while the short, descriptive names (_OptionalValidator, validator) make the purpose obvious. A minor deduction is the absence of a docstring explaining the class's role, which would help first-time readers.
Run 1
Code Structure: The validator is logically organized into a small class with distinct validation and representation methods, though several unused imports add clutter. Nesting: A single guard clause keeps control flow flat. Clarity of intent: The class name, None check, and delegation clearly express optional validation; abbreviated parameter names slightly reduce clarity. Code length: The class is concise, but the unused imports are unnecessary in this snippet. Action granularity: Each line performs one clear action. Reading flow: The progression from declaration to validation to representation is natural, with whitespace separating the main steps.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports and the validator class are logically organized, although several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Minimal nesting and an early return keep control flow flat. Clarity of intent: The class name, None check, delegated validation, and descriptive representation clearly communicate optional validation; abbreviated parameters ins, att, and val slightly reduce clarity. Code length: The implementation is concise without unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action. Reading flow: Methods follow a natural sequence, and whitespace separates logical steps, though an additional blank line before the class would improve conventional Python formatting.
Run 3
Code Structure: The small class is logically organized into state, validation behavior, and representation, although several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: A single conditional with an early return keeps execution flat. Clarity of intent: The class name and methods clearly express optional validation, but abbreviated parameters (ins, att, val) and the attrs-based field declaration require some familiarity. Code length: The implementation is concise without unnecessary logic; unused imports add clutter. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action, making individual operations easy to follow. Reading flow: The progression from the validator field to handling None, delegating validation, and formatting a representation is natural.