Sample
pyint-55748655a7f3-I12
Inline all eligible single-use intermediate local variables
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 | 16.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 17.67 | 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 very readable with clear structure and intent. It uses modern Python features (from __future__ import annotations, attrs library) and defines a simple class with a single attribute. Each import is on a separate line, the class definition is clean, and the __init__ method clearly assigns the attribute. One minor point: the explicit __init__ method is redundant if auto_detect=True is used, which could be slightly confusing. However, overall the code is concise, flat, and easy to follow.
Run 2
The code is generally readable: it has logical imports, a single class, and a simple constructor with clear intent. The use of `attrs.define(auto_detect=True)` is concise but potentially ambiguous—`auto_detect` is not a standard attrs parameter, which may confuse readers. The class has only one attribute and one method, keeping nesting flat and actions granular. However, the `__init__` is redundant with attrs' auto-generated initializer, adding unnecessary length. The structure is simple and natural to follow, but the overall purpose of `auto_detect=True` is unclear without additional context.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It has a clear structure with a single, well-defined class. Nesting is minimal, with only one method. Intent is clear: define a class with a simple integer attribute. Code length is concise and appropriate. Action granularity is one action per line. Reading flow is natural. Minor deductions: the redundant `__init__` and `auto_detect=True` could be simplified, but overall the code is clean, idiomatic, and easy to understand.
Run 1
Code Structure: Imports, class declaration, and initialization are logically organized, though several imports are unused. Nesting: Minimal, limited to a class and its method. Clarity of intent: The typed field and straightforward initializer are clear, but the generic names and unexplained auto_detect setting provide little context. Code length: Very concise, although the explicit initializer duplicates functionality attrs could generate. Action granularity: Each line performs one action. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression; separating standard-library and third-party imports and adding another blank line before the class would improve presentation.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports and a single class are logically organized, though several imports are unused. Nesting: Minimal nesting makes the code easy to follow. Clarity of intent: The typed field and simple initializer are clear, but the generic class name and unexplained auto_detect setting provide limited context. Code length: Very concise, although attrs could generate the initializer, depending on the intended purpose. Action granularity: Each line performs one action. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom flow; additional spacing between import groups and the class would improve formatting.
Run 3
Code Structure: Imports and the class are logically organized, although several imports are unused and spacing between sections could improve. Nesting: Minimal nesting makes the code easy to follow. Clarity of intent: The typed field and straightforward initializer clearly establish how x is stored, but the generic class name and unexplained auto_detect setting provide little context. Code length: Very concise, though unused imports add clutter and the explicit initializer may be unnecessary with attrs. Action granularity: Each line performs a single action. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression from imports to declaration to initialization, with only minor formatting distractions.