Sample
pyint-eb9939edaa6f-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.142 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.338 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 76 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 12.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 16 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.453 | 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. | 5406.954 | −178.429 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 144 | +57.6 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.472 | −6.708 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -118.667 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-118.667) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 144 | +4.244 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 144 | −4.062 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 144 | −2.884 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 143.775 | +1.6 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.087 | +0.096 |
| 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. | 87.979 | −0.061 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.802 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.802) = 0.142.
| Score | 0.338 |
|---|
| Score | 76 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is generally well-structured and readable. It uses clear class inheritance, type hints, and context managers effectively. Methods like `session_transaction` and `open` have logical flows, though `open` contains a branched conditional that slightly increases complexity. Nesting is mostly shallow, but the `open` method has multiple elif/else branches that could be simplified. Variable names are descriptive, and actions are usually one per line. Some lines are long, particularly f-strings and method calls, but not excessively so. The blank lines and comments help separate logical sections, but a few empty comments and trailing spaces could be cleaned up. Overall, the code is concise for its functionality and maintains a natural reading flow.
Run 2
The code is moderately readable but has some issues. Structurally it is organized into logical methods, but some methods ('open') are long and handle multiple branching cases, reducing clarity. Nesting is moderate—'session_transaction' and 'open' have several indent levels and conditional blocks. Intent is mostly clear, but the complex handling of different argument types in 'open' feels ambiguous. Code length is reasonable per method, though 'open' could be shorter. Action granularity is mixed: some lines do multiple things, especially within conditionals. Reading flow is uneven; comment placeholders and whitespace seem inconsistent. Overall, the code is understandable but not immediately approachable due to branching logic and lack of concise helper functions.
Run 3
The code is moderately readable. Structure is logical, and method names are descriptive, but the intent of some blocks is not immediately clear. Nesting levels are acceptable, though conditional branching in `open` is complex. Some long methods (e.g., `session_transaction`, `open`) handle multiple related actions, reducing action granularity. Type hints improve clarity, but excessive comments and blank lines in some areas disrupt natural reading flow. Code length is justified by functionality, but the `open` method could be refactored for clearer separation of cases.
Run 1
Code Structure: Logically organized into focused methods for sessions, request construction, and context management. Nesting: Mostly shallow, although open() has a moderately nested type-dispatch branch. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations help, but abbreviated variables and unexplained context-preservation mechanics require framework knowledge; several referenced types and helpers are not defined in the snippet. Code length: Generally concise, with some repetitive request-building logic and excessive blank lines. Action granularity: Statements usually perform one action per line, though chained builder calls compress multiple steps. Reading flow: Methods follow coherent sequences, and early checks simplify control flow, but irregular whitespace and missing explanatory comments interrupt readability around session and context lifecycle handling.
Run 2
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into initialization, session handling, request construction, and context management. Nesting: Mostly shallow, although open() has a moderately nested type-dispatch branch. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations help, but missing docstrings and unexplained context-preservation mechanics make lifecycle behavior harder to understand; several referenced types and helpers are not defined in the snippet. Code length: Generally concise, with some distracting blank lines and whitespace. Action granularity: Statements mostly perform one action per line, and multiline calls remain readable. Reading flow: Methods follow coherent execution sequences, with guard clauses and explicit cleanup improving flow, but the request-type branching and session context transitions require careful reading.
Run 3
Code Structure: Methods separate session handling, environment preparation, request construction, and context management logically. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with moderate branching in open() to support different input types. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations help, but missing definitions for several referenced types and helpers, absent docstrings, and abbreviated variables such as ctx and cm reduce standalone clarity. Code length: Generally concise and appropriately decomposed, although excessive blank lines add visual noise. Action granularity: Statements consistently perform one action per line; chained builder calls remain manageable. Reading flow: Operations follow a natural sequence, but unexplained context preservation and cleanup behavior require framework knowledge, and inconsistent whitespace interrupts scanning.