Sample
pyint-78c589572b16-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.569 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.901 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.699 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 10 | 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 | 0.811 | 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. | 218.725 | −7.218 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.384 | −6.576 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 13 | +5.2 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 0.277 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.277) = 0.569.
Feature contributions
| 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. | 33.429 | +2.249 |
| 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 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 13 | −0.287 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.068 | +0.278 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 12.686 | −0.233 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 2.212 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(2.212) = 0.901.
| Score | 0.699 |
|---|
| Score | 10 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable. It has a clear, simple structure: a single class definition with one attribute and a minimal constructor. Nesting is effectively flat, with only the class body containing a method. The intent is unambiguous—defining a straightforward data class using `attrs` with auto-detection enabled. The code is concise, avoiding unnecessary boilerplate. Each action is on its own line, promoting clarity. The reading flow is natural: imports, class declaration, attribute type hint, and a simple initializer. The only minor redundancy is the explicit `__init__` method, which `attrs` could generate automatically if `auto_attribs` were used instead of `auto_detect`, but this doesn't significantly hinder readability.
Run 2
The code is concise and logically structured with clear intent. It defines a single attrs-based class with an explicit constructor. The nesting is flat, each line performs a single action, and the reading flow is natural. Minor deductions: the redundant __init__ duplicates what attrs would auto-generate, and unused imports slightly clutter the file, but overall readability remains high.
Run 3
The code is clean and well-structured. It imports only necessary modules, defines one class with a simple attribute, and uses the attrs decorator in a standard way. The `auto_detect=True` parameter is a bit unusual but acceptable. The explicit `__init__` method is redundant when using `@attrs.define`, which slightly hurts conciseness. Indentation is flat, each action is on one line, and the intent is clear. Overall, highly readable with only minor redundancy.
Run 1
Code Structure: Imports, class declaration, and initializer are logically organized, though several imports are unused. Nesting: Minimal nesting makes the code easy to follow. Clarity of intent: The class clearly stores an integer, but generic names such as AutoDetect and x provide little domain context; the explicit initializer alongside attrs may also warrant explanation. Code length: Very concise, although unused imports add clutter. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single action. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression, with minor spacing improvements possible between imports and the class.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports and the class are logically organized, though unused imports (copy, re, sys, Any) add clutter. Nesting: Minimal, with only a class and its initializer. Clarity of intent: The initializer clearly assigns x, but the generic class and field names and unexplained auto_detect option provide little context. Code length: Very concise, although the explicit initializer may be unnecessary for a simple attrs class. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action. Reading flow: Straightforward and natural; separating standard-library and third-party imports and adding conventional blank lines would improve presentation.
Run 3
Code Structure: Imports and a single class are logically organized, though standard-library and third-party imports lack separation. Nesting: Minimal, with only a class and its initializer. Clarity of intent: The typed attribute and straightforward assignment are clear, but the interaction between auto_detect=True and the explicit initializer requires familiarity with attrs. Code length: Concise overall, although copy, re, sys, and Any are unused, and the initializer could ordinarily be generated by attrs. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression, with minor distractions from unused imports and slightly sparse spacing between top-level elements.