Sample
pyint-847e92fda508-I11
Split eligible integer literals into pairs of short-named intermediate variables
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.06 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.572 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 188 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 4.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 11 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.226 | 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. | 11335.311 | −374.065 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 273 | +109.2 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.433 | −6.649 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -262.644 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-262.644) = 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. | 273 | −8.63 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 247 | +7.806 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 247 | −5.247 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 272.87 | +3.404 |
| 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. | 121.982 | −1.501 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 122 | +1.164 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.079 | +0.178 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -2.755 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.755) = 0.06.
| Score | 0.572 |
|---|
| Score | 188 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is poorly readable due to deliberate obfuscation. There are numerous meaningless variable assignments (e.g., 'a = 1', 'b = -1', 'self._thread_local.nonce_count = (a + b)') that obscure simple values like 0 or 1. Magic numbers are wrapped in useless arithmetic operations (e.g., '(n + o)', '(j + k)', '(v + w)'), and repeated patterns for incrementing/decrementing are verbose and confusing. The logical flow is broken by disorganized variable placement, and variable names like 'KD', 's_auth', 'pat', and 'base' lack clarity. Nesting is moderate, but the overall intent is obscured by the excessive noise and intentionally tangled modifications, making the code very hard to follow and maintain.
Run 2
The code suffers from severe readability issues. It uses nonsensical variable names (a, b, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, t, u, v, w, y, z, aa, ab, ac, ad, ae, af) for simple arithmetic operations that obscure the intent (e.g., literally computing 2 + (-1) instead of using 1). The deeply nested conditional logic for digest algorithm selection, repeated local function definitions, and excessive inline comments create confusion. While the class structure and type hints are present, the artificial complexity—like splitting simple increments into multiple variables—makes the code unnecessarily long and hard to follow. Reading flow is disrupted by these obfuscated operations, violating the principles of clear intent and action granularity. The code appears deliberately obfuscated, which would make maintenance and review extremely difficult.
Run 3
This code is severely obfuscated and nearly unreadable. It appears to be intentionally mangled: variable names like 'a', 'b', 'c', 'e' are used for arithmetic operations that simply compute 0 or 1 (e.g., nonce_count = 2 + -1). This obscures intent completely. The code structure is tangled, with dead code (entdig), unnecessary nested functions, and convoluted logic. Reading flow is disrupted by meaningless variables and redundant comments. Action granularity is poor, with multiple operations crammed into expressions. The original logic (digest auth) is barely recognizable under the obfuscation. While the class has type hints and docstrings, they do not compensate for the overall unreadability. The code length is inflated with pointless assignments and arithmetic. Nesting is moderate but the obfuscation makes it feel deeper. Clarity of intent is nearly zero for anyone not reverse-engineering the hidden constants.
Run 1
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, digest construction, response handling, and request setup, but digest construction is oversized. Nesting: Mostly moderate, with early returns limiting depth; nested hash helpers add complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, type hints, and comments clarify authentication behavior, but meaningless variables and arithmetic expressions obscure simple constants and counter updates. Code length: Unnecessarily inflated by these temporary variables and repetitive hashing helpers. Action granularity: Generally one action per line, though many lines perform trivial intermediate calculations rather than meaningful actions. Reading flow: The authentication sequence is coherent, but repeated arithmetic detours, terse protocol variables, placeholder comments, and a stale reference to lambdas interrupt comprehension. Overall, the organization is sound, but deliberate-looking verbosity substantially reduces readability.
Run 2
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, digest construction, response handling, and request preparation, although digest construction is lengthy. Nesting: Mostly moderate, with early returns limiting depth; nested hash functions and conditionals add complexity. Clarity of intent: Method names, type annotations, and comments explain authentication behavior, but meaningless variables such as a, b, and aa obscure simple constants and counter updates. Code length: Repeated hashing wrappers and unnecessary arithmetic assignments substantially inflate the code. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action, but straightforward operations are fragmented into distracting multi-line calculations. Reading flow: The authentication sequence is generally coherent, yet frequent arithmetic detours, cryptic intermediate names, stale comments, and long expressions interrupt comprehension. Overall, the underlying organization is readable, but deliberate constant obfuscation significantly reduces clarity and concision.
Run 3
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, digest construction, response handling, and request preparation, although digest construction is lengthy. Nesting: Mostly moderate, with early returns limiting depth; nested hash helpers and authentication branches add complexity. Clarity of intent: Method names, annotations, and comments explain the authentication workflow, but meaningless variables such as a, b, aa, and ab obscure simple constants through unnecessary arithmetic. Code length: Repeated hash implementations and artificial constant calculations substantially inflate the code. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action, making individual operations easy to identify, though many actions are needless intermediates. Reading flow: The overall request/authentication sequence is coherent, but repeated arithmetic detours, terse protocol variables, stale comments, and extensive thread-local access interrupt reading. Overall, the organization is sound, but deliberate-looking numerical obfuscation significantly reduces readability.