Sample
pyint-1d72ce529dce-I13
Lower every eligible synchronous for loop to a while loop
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.001 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.777 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.076 | 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 | 0.538 | 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. | 635.312 | −20.965 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 28 | +11.2 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.417 | −6.626 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -7.521 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-7.521) = 0.001.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 103 | +0.857 |
| 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. | 103 | −0.697 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.048 | +0.472 |
| 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. | 26 | +0.162 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 27.779 | −0.022 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 29 | +0.01 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.25 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.25) = 0.777.
| Score | 0.076 |
|---|
| Score | 17 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable with a clear, single-purpose class. It has a flat structure with minimal nesting—only a single conditional inside the __call__ method. The intent is explicit: a validator that checks if a value is an instance of a specified type, raising a descriptive TypeError otherwise. The code is concise, with no unnecessary lines. Action granularity is appropriate; each line performs one logical step, such as constructing the error message or raising the exception. Reading flow is natural, following a top-down progression from imports to class definition and methods. The use of attrs for class definition and f-strings for error messages enhances clarity. Minor deductions only because the type annotation (type = attrib()) could be more explicit, and the error message construction is slightly verbose, but overall it's clean and maintainable.
Run 2
The code demonstrates high readability through clear structure, minimal nesting, and explicit intent. The class is logically organized with a focused single responsibility, and methods are concise with clear names. Nesting is shallow, limited to a single conditional check, and the error message construction is clear. Action granularity is well-balanced: each meaningful operation is on its own line, while simple assignments remain compact. Reading flow is natural from imports through class definition to method implementations. Minor deductions come from the unused imports (operator, re, Pattern, contextmanager, and several attrs-related items), which introduce slight ambiguity about intent. The repr method's one-line return is acceptable given its simplicity. Overall, the code is highly readable and maintainable.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It has a clear, single-purpose class with a logical structure. Nesting is minimal, with only one conditional inside the __call__ method. Intent is explicit: validating instance types. The code is concise, avoids unnecessary length, and each action is clearly separated, particularly in the __call__ method. The reading flow is natural, with class definitions and methods ordered logically. Imports are grouped and followed by the class definition, enhancing organization. The only minor issue is the slightly long f-string message, but it remains understandable and well-formatted. Overall, this is clean, idiomatic Python.
Run 1
Code Structure: Imports and a focused validator class are logically organized, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Shallow nesting makes the validation path easy to follow. Clarity of intent: The class name, isinstance check, descriptive error message, and custom representation clearly communicate purpose; the docstring explains the callable-class design, although abbreviations and library-specific decorators require some familiarity. Code length: Concise overall, with minor visual overhead from the multiline exception construction. Action granularity: Each statement performs a distinct action, cleanly separating message creation from raising the exception. Reading flow: Natural progression from configuration to validation and representation, slightly weakened by the missing blank-line separation before the decorated class.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports and a small validator class are logically organized, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: Only a single conditional keeps the code flat and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: The class name, isinstance check, descriptive error message, and custom repr clearly communicate the validator's purpose; the __call__ docstring explains the class design rather than the method's behavior. Code length: The implementation is concise, although the multiline exception construction is somewhat verbose. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action, with message creation separated from raising the exception. Reading flow: The progression from configuration to validation to representation is natural, with minor friction from the long error-message line and framework-specific decorators.
Run 3
Code Structure: Imports, class definition, validation method, and representation method are logically organized, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: A single conditional keeps the code shallow and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: The class name, isinstance check, descriptive error message, and __repr__ clearly communicate type validation; the docstring explains the callable-class design rather than the method's behavior. Code length: The implementation is concise, although the multiline exception construction is somewhat verbose. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action, with message construction separated from raising the exception. Reading flow: The code proceeds naturally from configuration to validation and representation, with minor distractions from unused imports and a long error-message line.