Sample
Split eligible integer literals into pairs of short-named intermediate variables
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.002 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.799 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.48 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 11 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.752 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Loading feature diagnosis…
| 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. | 408.424 | −13.478 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.62 | −6.93 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 13 | +5.2 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -6.338 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-6.338) = 0.002.
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 55.857 | +1.299 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 14 | +0.541 |
| 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 *. | 0.057 | +0.393 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 13 | −0.287 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 12.912 | −0.229 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.379 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.379) = 0.799.
| Score | 0.48 |
|---|
| Score | 11 |
|---|
The code is highly readable with a clear, logical structure. Imports are grouped and ordered conventionally, the class definition is clean and properly extends AppConfig, and the single method `ready` has a clear intent of connecting a signal. Nesting is minimal, with only one level of class-method indentation. Action granularity is appropriate — one action per statement. The reading flow is natural: config metadata first, then behavior. The only minor deduction is that the imported `base`, `get_level_tags`, and `SimpleLazyObject` are unused, and the function `update_level_tags` is not defined in this snippet; these could cause ambiguity about intent. Overall, concise and well-structured code.
The code is highly readable. Imports are organized, the class structure is logical and concise, with clear intent for config and signal connection. Nesting is minimal, action granularity is clear, and the reading flow is natural.
The code is generally readable with a clear, logical structure. It imports only necessary modules, defines a single AppConfig subclass with clear attributes and a straightforward ready method. Nesting is minimal and clarity of intent is high — the class name, attributes, and method purpose are evident. However, the 'update_level_tags' function is referenced but not imported or defined in this snippet, which slightly obscures intent. The code is concise and each action occupies its own line, maintaining good action granularity. Reading flow is natural. Minor improvements could include a docstring explaining the signal connection purpose, but overall readability is strong.
Code Structure: Imports and a single app configuration class are logically organized. Nesting: Minimal, with only one method inside the class. Clarity of intent: The class clearly configures Django messages and connects a settings-change handler, though update_level_tags is not defined or imported in the snippet, making the handler's purpose less explicit. Code length: Concise, but base, get_level_tags, and SimpleLazyObject are unused imports. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action. Reading flow: Natural progression from imports to configuration attributes to initialization behavior; an additional blank line before the class would improve conventional Python formatting.
Code Structure: Imports and a focused AppConfig class are logically organized, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Minimal nesting makes the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: Class attributes clearly configure Django's messages app, and ready() registers a signal handler; however, update_level_tags is not defined or imported here, leaving its origin unclear. Code length: Short and appropriately concise. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action. Reading flow: Natural progression from imports to configuration to initialization, though an additional blank line before the class would improve standard Python formatting.
Code Structure: Imports and application configuration are logically organized, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Minimal nesting makes the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: Class attributes clearly identify the Django application, and ready() registers a settings-change handler; however, update_level_tags is not defined or imported in the provided code. Code length: Short and concise, with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single action. Reading flow: Natural progression from imports to configuration to initialization, though an additional blank line before the class would improve formatting.