Sample
pyint-794ee150d6a4-I05
Rewrite eligible decimal integer literals in hexadecimal notation
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.604 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.669 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 17 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.572 | 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. | 780.484 | −25.756 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 21 | +8.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.653 | −6.979 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -15.465 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-15.465) = 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 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| 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. | 78 | +0.361 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.066 | +0.303 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 22 | +0.257 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 20.797 | −0.119 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 20 | −0.045 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.421 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.421) = 0.604.
| Score | 0.669 |
|---|
| Score | 17 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is clean and readable. Structure is logical: a simple class encapsulates two data attributes and one rendering method. Nesting is flat, with only a list comprehension. Intent is clear from descriptive names ('ExtraWhere', 'sqls', 'params') and a helpful comment explaining constraints. The code is concise without unnecessary boilerplate. Action granularity is fine, with each step in 'as_sql' separated. Reading flow is natural. Minor deductions: the 'compiler' and 'connection' parameters are unused, and the comprehension could be split for clarity, but overall readability is high.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It has a clear, minimal class structure with a well-defined purpose. Nesting is essentially flat. Intent is explicit via comments and naming. Length is concise; no unnecessary code. Action granularity is good — one logical action per line (the list comprehension and join in as_sql are compact but clear). Reading flow is natural: class docstring explaining constraints, simple __init__, and a clear as_sql method. Minor deduction only because the list comprehension and formatting could be expanded for slightly improved clarity, but overall very clean.
Run 3
The code is well-structured and highly readable. It has a clear class definition with a single responsibility and minimal nesting. The class attributes are documented succinctly with a comment, clarifying that aggregates/windows are not handled. The __init__ method is concise and directly assigns instance variables. The as_sql method demonstrates good action granularity: formatting each SQL snippet into parentheses is done in one line with a list comprehension, followed by a clear join operation. The flow is natural—starting with class-level metadata, moving to initialization, then providing the core SQL generation method. The use of a list comprehension keeps the code concise without sacrificing clarity. Variable names like sqls, params, and self.sqls are self-explanatory. Overall, the code is clean, purposeful, and easy to follow. Minor deductions only because the exact meaning of ExtraWhere as a concept is slightly domain-specific, but within its context it is clear.
Run 1
Code Structure: Imports and a small, focused class provide logical organization, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Minimal nesting makes the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: The class stores SQL fragments and parameters, then combines the fragments with AND; the comment explains the aggregate and window assumptions. Names such as sqls are slightly terse. Code length: The implementation is concise without unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one clear action; the return expression combines formatting and parameter normalization but remains readable. Reading flow: Class attributes, initialization, and SQL generation appear in a natural sequence. Additional spacing between imports and the class would improve visual separation.
Run 2
Code Structure: The class is logically organized, with attributes followed by initialization and SQL generation; unused imports add clutter. Nesting: The code is flat, with no deeply nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Names and the comment clearly communicate the class's role, though the expected shape of sqls and params is implicit. Code length: The implementation is concise without unnecessary logic, but imports unrelated to this snippet reduce focus. Action granularity: Each statement performs a distinct action; the return expression combines related output preparation appropriately. Reading flow: Execution is easy to follow from storing inputs to wrapping SQL fragments and joining them, with only minor formatting and import distractions.
Run 3
Code Structure: The small class is logically organized, with class-level flags, initialization, and SQL rendering clearly separated. Nesting: The code is flat, with only a simple list comprehension. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method and attribute names, plus the comment, make its purpose clear, although the black-box assumption requires context. Code length: The implementation is concise, but numerous unused imports add clutter to this snippet. Action granularity: Each statement performs a focused action; the return line combines two closely related output transformations without becoming difficult to read. Reading flow: The progression from configuration to stored inputs to SQL output is natural. Additional blank lines around the class and between import groups would improve formatting.