Sample
pyint-263435bf94e5-I10
Deterministically remove some optional blank lines and bracketed line breaks
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.709 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.507 | 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 | 0.637 | 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. | 20 | +8 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.502 | −6.752 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -7.928 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-7.928) = 0.
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. | 68.905 | +0.747 |
| 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 *. | 0.059 | +0.364 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 21 | +0.293 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 19.843 | −0.132 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 20 | −0.045 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.89 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.89) = 0.709.
| Score | 0.507 |
|---|
| Score | 16 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is well-structured with a clear class definition using the attrs library. Imports are organized, though some unused imports (operator, re, Pattern, contextmanager) slightly reduce clarity. The class has a clear purpose as an optional validator. Nesting is minimal with only one conditional check. The `__call__` method is concise and the logic is straightforward - if value is None, skip validation; otherwise delegate to the wrapped validator. The `__repr__` provides helpful debug information. Action granularity is good with one action per line. Reading flow is natural from imports through class definition to methods. Minor deductions for unused imports and the slightly cryptic parameter names (inst, attr, value) which could be more descriptive, though these follow common attrs validator conventions.
Run 2
This code is highly readable. It has a clear structure, with imports organized logically and a single class definition. The nesting is minimal, and the intent of each method is straightforward. The code is concise, avoiding unnecessary length. Action granularity is appropriate—each line performs a distinct action, and the reading flow is natural. The use of type hints and docstrings-like comments would improve it slightly, but overall it is very clean and maintainable.
Run 3
The code is generally clear and well-structured. It imports necessary modules and defines a single class with a clear purpose: a validator that allows None or delegates to another validator. The class uses the attrs decorator to reduce boilerplate. Nesting is minimal—only one level inside __call__. Each action is on its own line, and naming is descriptive. The main opportunity for improvement is the mix of import styles (redundant 'import re' and 'from re import Pattern') and the unused contextmanager import. Also, the __call__ method lacks a docstring, which would clarify intent. Still, the code is concise, readable, and follows common Python patterns.
Run 1
Code Structure: Imports and the validator class are logically organized, though several imports are unused in the shown snippet. Nesting: Minimal; an early return avoids unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: The class name, delegation, and descriptive repr clearly communicate optional validation, although inst and attr are abbreviated and the attrs configuration requires familiarity with the library. Code length: The implementation is concise, with little unnecessary code beyond unused imports. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action. Reading flow: The code flows naturally from declaration to validation behavior to representation; an extra blank line between imports and the class would improve visual separation.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports and a small validator class are logically organized, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Minimal nesting and an early return keep execution straightforward. Clarity of intent: The class name, None check, delegated validation, and descriptive representation clearly communicate optional validation; abbreviated parameters and framework-specific decorators require some familiarity. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary logic, although unused imports add clutter. Action granularity: Each line performs one clear action. Reading flow: Methods follow a natural progression from stored validator to invocation behavior and representation; an additional blank line between imports and the class would improve visual separation.
Run 3
Code Structure: Imports and a small validator class are logically organized, though 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, and delegation clearly convey optional validation; the decorator and attrib() require familiarity with the supporting library. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action. Reading flow: Methods progress naturally from validation behavior to representation, although an additional blank line between imports and the class would improve visual separation.