Sample
pyint-a2aaeb8d4de4-I05
Rewrite eligible decimal integer literals in hexadecimal notation
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.831 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.26 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 17 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.617 | 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. | 578.587 | −19.093 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 23 | +9.2 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.609 | −6.914 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -7.937 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-7.937) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 86.917 | +0.598 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.05 | +0.46 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 24 | +0.187 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 22.784 | −0.091 |
| 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. | 86.958 | −0.018 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 21 | −0.011 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.592 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.592) = 0.831.
| Score | 0.26 |
|---|
| Score | 17 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is well-structured and highly readable. It imports only what is needed, defines a single focused class with a clear purpose, and keeps nesting minimal (one level inside __call__). The validation logic is straightforward: check length, raise error with a clear message. The custom __repr__ method enhances debugging. Naming is descriptive, and the docstring clarifies the design choice. The class is concise without unnecessary verbosity, and each logical action is separated naturally. Minor deductions: some imports like operator, re, and Pattern appear unused, and the overall module lacks context, but within the given snippet, readability is strong.
Run 2
The code is highly readable with a clear, focused structure. It uses a single class to encapsulate validation logic, keeping the overall design simple and logical. Nesting is minimal, with only one conditional inside the __call__ method, promoting flat code. The intent of the class is clear from its name and docstring. The method bodies are concise, each performing one logical action. Action granularity is appropriate—each line in __call__ does one distinct thing. The reading flow is natural, with functionality grouped neatly and imports organized. The main minor deduction is the slightly vague docstring about changing the repr, which could be more explanatory.
Run 3
The code is generally clear and well-structured. It uses a frozen, slotted attrs class for a validator, which is logical. The __call__ method is flat, with only one level of nesting inside the conditional. Intent is evident: enforce a maximum length. The __repr__ method aids debugging. However, some imports appear unused (e.g., default_if_none, Pattern) or indirectly related (e.g., get_run_validators, and_), which could cause confusion. The docstring is brief but focused on the repr rationale. Overall, the class is concise and readable, though cleaning up imports would improve clarity.
Run 1
Code Structure: The validator class cleanly groups its configuration, validation logic, and representation, though several imports are unused in this snippet. Nesting: A single conditional keeps the code flat and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class and attribute names, plus an informative error message, clearly convey maximum-length validation; the __call__ docstring explains representation customization rather than the method's validation purpose. Code length: The implementation is concise, with little unnecessary code beyond the unused imports. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action. Reading flow: Configuration, validation, and representation appear in a natural order, with appropriate spacing. Minor improvements would include removing unused imports and making the docstring more directly describe validation.
Run 2
Code Structure: The validator class logically groups its configuration, validation behavior, and representation, though numerous unused imports add clutter. Nesting: A single conditional keeps the code flat and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and a clear error message make the maximum-length constraint obvious; the __call__ docstring explains the callable-class design rather than the method's validation behavior. Code length: The implementation is concise, although len(value) is repeated and imports exceed what this snippet needs. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action. Reading flow: Configuration, validation, and representation appear in a natural order, with readable spacing and straightforward control flow.
Run 3
Code Structure: The validator is logically organized into configuration, validation, and representation methods, though numerous unused imports clutter the snippet. Nesting: A single conditional keeps control flow flat and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class and attribute names, a straightforward length check, and a helpful error message make the purpose clear; the callable-method docstring explains the design choice rather than its validation behavior. Code length: The implementation is concise, with little unnecessary code beyond the imports. Action granularity: Each line performs one clear action. Reading flow: The class reads naturally from its length limit to enforcement and display, although attrs-specific conventions may require background knowledge.