Sample
pyint-c3d25d1a7969-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.584 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.573 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 20 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 17.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.555 | 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. | 737.534 | −24.339 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 31 | +12.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.334 | −6.5 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -9.569 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-9.569) = 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 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.051 | +0.442 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 31 | +0.335 |
| 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. | 88 | −0.062 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 31 | −0.061 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 30.775 | +0.02 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.338 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.338) = 0.584.
| Score | 0.573 |
|---|
| Score | 20 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is well-structured and readable. It follows a clean class-based validator pattern with clear logical organization. Nesting is minimal except for a try/except block, which is appropriate for handling TypeError. Naming is consistent and descriptive; variables like `in_options`, `self.options`, and `_original_options` make intent evident. The code is concise without being cryptic, and each line performs a single logical action. The `__call__` method reads naturally: check membership, handle type errors, raise a meaningful error if needed. Error messages are informative and use f-strings clearly. The only minor deductions are the unnecessary `try` block scope (could be narrower) and minor spacing after `except TypeError:`, but these do not significantly impair readability. Overall, it demonstrates strong adherence to Pythonic style and maintainable design.
Run 2
The code is highly readable with clear structure and intent. It defines a single validator class using the attrs library, with logical organization: imports, class definition, initialization via attrib(), and three well-separated methods. Nesting is minimal—only a try/except and an if statement, keeping the logic flat and easy to follow. Each action is on its own line, enhancing clarity. The code is concise without being overly terse, and the error message construction is clear. The validator's purpose is unambiguous: check membership and raise ValueError with helpful context. Minor deductions: the except block silently sets `in_options = False` on a TypeError, which slightly obscures intent (e.g., a brief comment could clarify); also, `_original_options` is stored for error reporting, but this duplication could surprise maintainers. Overall, the reading flow is natural, methods are well-named, and the code exemplifies clean, maintainable design.
Run 3
The code is well-structured and highly readable. It uses a clean class-based validator with clear attribute definitions via `attrs`. The `__call__` method logically separates membership checking, error message construction, and exception raising. Nesting is minimal—only a single try/except and one conditional. Intent is explicit: invalid values raise a descriptive `ValueError`. The code is concise without sacrificing clarity. Action granularity is appropriate, though the multi-line `raise ValueError(...)` call could arguably be compressed. Reading flow is natural, moving from validation logic to error handling to representation. Minor deductions: the blank line containing trailing whitespace after the `except` line is a small formatting issue, and the `msg` variable could be inlined directly into the exception for slightly tighter code.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into attribute declarations, validation, and representation, though several unused imports add clutter. Nesting: Shallow try/except and a single conditional keep complexity low. Clarity of intent: Membership validation is clear from names and the error message; the distinction between options and _original_options is not explained. Code length: The implementation is concise, although the multiline exception construction is slightly verbose. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action, with no compressed or compound operations. Reading flow: Validation proceeds naturally from membership checking to error handling, followed by a straightforward representation method. Minor formatting inconsistencies and framework-specific decorators slightly reduce accessibility.
Run 2
Code Structure: The validator class logically groups configuration, validation, and representation, though several unused imports add clutter. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with a straightforward try/except followed by one conditional. Clarity of intent: Membership validation is clear from names and the descriptive error message; the distinction between options and _original_options is not explained. Code length: The implementation is concise, although the multiline exception construction is somewhat verbose. Action granularity: Each line generally performs a single action, making the code easy to scan. Reading flow: Execution proceeds naturally from the membership check to failure handling, with clear spacing between methods. Framework-specific decorators and attribute declarations require some background knowledge.
Run 3
Code Structure: The class logically separates stored options, validation, and representation, although several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Shallow try/except and a single conditional keep complexity low. Clarity of intent: Membership validation is clear, aided by descriptive names and a useful error message; framework-specific decorators and the distinction between options and _original_options require some context. Code length: The implementation is concise, though unused imports and the expanded exception arguments add minor overhead. Action granularity: Each line generally performs one action, making individual operations easy to identify. Reading flow: Execution proceeds naturally from membership testing to failure handling, followed by representation. Minor formatting issues, including trailing whitespace and limited spacing before the class, slightly reduce polish.