Sample
pyint-803f7c9f1613-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.008 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.729 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 195 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 15 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 14 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.404 | 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. | 13661.759 | −450.838 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 457 | +182.8 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.182 | −6.273 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -265.441 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-265.441) = 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. | 458 | −15.18 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 457 | +15.07 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 457 | −10.066 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 456.955 | +5.978 |
| 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 *. | 0.078 | +0.185 |
| 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. | 87.961 | −0.06 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -4.808 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-4.808) = 0.008.
| Score | 0.729 |
|---|
| Score | 195 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is generally well-structured and readable. It follows a logical organization with clear import grouping, typed annotations, and consistent formatting. Methods are named clearly and serve distinct purposes. Nesting is moderate; methods like iter_content and raise_for_status use conditional blocks but remain comprehensible. The use of type hints and docstrings (though many are placeholder) supports clarity. However, the code is somewhat verbose in places, particularly in iter_content where overloads and nested conditionals add complexity. Action granularity is mostly one action per line, improving readability, though some lines are dense (e.g., chunk = cast("str | bytes", pending + chunk)). The reading flow is natural, with properties and methods ordered predictably. The primary detractors are the presence of multiple empty comments as placeholders and minor redundancy in type checking, but overall the code is clear, maintainable, and professional.
Run 2
The code demonstrates good readability with clear class structure, logical method organization, and well-documented sections. Methods are appropriately short and focused on single responsibilities. Type hints and overloads enhance clarity. However, there are minor issues: some deeply nested logic in methods like json() and raise_for_status(), multiple inline comments that could be consolidated, and a few methods that could be broken down further. The blank lines and comment blocks in __init__ improve readability but add unnecessary length. Overall, the code is well-structured and maintainable, following consistent patterns throughout.
Run 3
This is a well-structured class with clear attribute definitions and logical method organization. However, readability is hampered by inconsistent indentation, numerous commented-out code blocks, and excessive whitespace. The nested generator and exception handling in `iter_content` add complexity. Type hints are helpful, but overloads and imports add bulk. Comments often explain 'what' rather than 'why', and many blank or placeholder comments create noise. The code lacks a consistent documentation style and contains redundant methods like `__nonzero__`. Overall, the intent is clear to an experienced developer but requires patience to parse due to formatting inconsistencies and verbose annotations.
Run 1
Code Structure: Methods and properties logically group response behavior, though the extensive import block includes unrelated dependencies. Nesting: Mostly shallow, but streaming and JSON decoding introduce moderately nested exception handling. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and type annotations communicate purpose; missing documentation obscures content-consumption state, encoding fallbacks, and partial-line handling. Some annotations conflict with assigned or returned None values, and several referenced names are not defined in the snippet. Code length: Individual methods are generally focused, but excessive blank lines, imports, and repeated overload signatures make the class unnecessarily lengthy to scan. Action granularity: Statements predominantly perform one action per line, with compact expressions remaining manageable. Reading flow: Method ordering is natural, progressing from initialization and lifecycle operations to content access and error handling, but inconsistent whitespace and unexplained edge cases interrupt comprehension.
Run 2
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into focused methods and properties, though the large import block includes many names unused in this excerpt. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with moderate nesting in streaming, JSON decoding, and link parsing. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations help, but missing documentation, unexplained content-state sentinels, annotation/value inconsistencies, and externally defined names obscure details. Code length: Excessive blank lines and repeated overload signatures make the class visually longer than necessary. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, and exception handling is explicit. Reading flow: Method organization is coherent, but whitespace clutter, subtle state changes during property access, and complex conditions interrupt otherwise natural reading.
Run 3
Code Structure: The Response class is logically divided into focused methods and properties, though numerous unrelated imports add clutter. Nesting: Most methods are shallow, but streaming and JSON decoding contain moderately nested branches and exception handling. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and type annotations help, but missing documentation, unexplained content-state sentinels, unresolved names in the excerpt, and annotations inconsistent with assigned values reduce clarity. Code length: Excessive blank lines, unused imports, and repeated overload signatures make the excerpt longer to scan than necessary. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with readable expressions and well-separated exception handlers. Reading flow: The progression from initialization to response inspection, content processing, and cleanup is natural, but whitespace gaps and subtle state transitions interrupt comprehension.