Sample
Buse/64
Human rating uses the original dataset scale.
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale | Dataset rank (0–100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.619 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 68.7Δ 9.1 |
| Dorn | 0.615 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 52.5Δ 7.1 |
| Mi | 0.355 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 24.2Δ 35.4 |
| LLOC | 4 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable | 59.6Δ 0.0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 10.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 18.2Δ 41.4 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 16.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 50.0Δ 9.6 |
| BTTF | 0.469 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 40.4Δ 19.2 |
| Human | 3.6 | 1–5; original rating | 59.6 |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 3.507 | −5.26 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 155.324 | −5.126 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 5 | +2 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 0.485 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.485) = 0.619.
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. | 61 | +1.082 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 6 | +0.824 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 1 | −0.703 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 4.887 | −0.342 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.103 | −0.056 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.469 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.469) = 0.615.
| Score | 0.355 |
|---|
| Score | 4 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is extremely difficult to evaluate and appears to be a small, incomplete fragment. It shows a while loop with three statements that are logically related (iterating over class names and retrieving catalog/schema info), but the variable naming is poor and inconsistent: 'clsName', 'clsCat', and 'clsSchem' are cryptic abbreviations. The alignment of equals signs is inconsistent, which hurts readability. The fragment lacks context—there is no initialization, no surrounding method, and no indication of what 'ns' is or why these operations are being performed, making the code intent unclear. Indentation is present but the overall structure cannot be assessed from this snippet alone. The action granularity is acceptable (one action per line), and the loop logic is straightforward, but the lack of meaningful names, missing context, and unexplained operations severely reduce clarity. Score is low due to ambiguity and poor naming regardless of the simple structure.
Run 2
The code is moderately readable. It uses a clear while loop with descriptive variable names like clsName, clsCat, and clsSchem, indicating intent. The structure is flat, and each action is on its own line, which aids readability. However, the variable alignment with excessive whitespace is unconventional and may distract. The code snippet is short and concise, but lacks context—the purpose of the loop and the surrounding logic are not shown, making it harder to judge overall clarity. Nesting is minimal. The reading flow is natural but slightly interrupted by the odd spacing.
Run 3
The code snippet shows a straightforward while loop iterating over class names, with each iteration performing three clear variable assignments. Structure is logical: retrieve next name, fetch catalog, fetch schema. Nesting is minimal (single loop). Clarity of intent is decent—it's clearly populating class metadata properties, though variable abbreviations like 'clsCat' and 'clsSchem' slightly reduce readability. Code length is concise. Action granularity is good—one action per line. Reading flow is natural and sequential. However, missing context: no loop condition explanation, no null checks, no type safety (raw Iterator with cast), and no comments explaining domain terms. Alignment of assignments is stylistically unusual but not harmful. Overall, readable but not exceptional without surrounding context.
Run 1
Code Structure: The loop logically groups retrieval of a class name and its catalog and schema. Nesting: Only one nesting level is shown, making the code easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Method names communicate the operations, though abbreviated variable names and an explicit String cast slightly reduce clarity. Code length: The snippet is concise with no unnecessary statements. Action granularity: Each line performs one distinct assignment. Reading flow: The sequence is natural, and aligned assignments aid scanning. However, excessive leading indentation and the missing closing brace make the provided fragment less readable as a standalone example.
Run 2
Code Structure: The loop logically groups iteration and class-name metadata retrieval. Nesting: Only one loop level is visible, keeping the snippet easy to follow. Clarity of intent: The method names convey catalog and schema lookup, though abbreviated variables such as clsCat, clsSchem, and ns reduce clarity. Code length: The snippet is concise without unnecessary statements. Action granularity: Each line performs one assignment or lookup. Reading flow: Operations proceed naturally from obtaining a class name to retrieving its metadata, and aligned assignments aid scanning. The missing closing brace makes the provided snippet incomplete.
Run 3
Code Structure: The loop logically groups iteration and retrieval of class metadata. Nesting: Only one loop level is visible, keeping complexity low. Clarity of intent: Method names clearly indicate catalog and schema retrieval, though abbreviations such as clsCat and ns reduce clarity. Code length: The snippet is concise without redundant statements. Action granularity: Each line performs one assignment, making individual steps easy to follow. Reading flow: The sequence naturally progresses from obtaining a class name to retrieving its metadata, with aligned assignments aiding scanning. However, the missing closing brace makes the snippet visibly incomplete, and the heavy initial indentation lacks surrounding context.