Sample
int-9427e6d4a505-I05
Rewrite eligible decimal integer literals in hexadecimal notation
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.996 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.939 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.795 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.687 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 27 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 18.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.72 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 128 | +51.2 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 1427.996 | −47.124 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.888 | −7.331 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 5.615 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(5.615) = 0.996.
| Score | 0.939 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 123 | −3.319 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 74 | +1.822 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 127.781 | +1.376 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 94.961 | +0.728 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.032 | +0.635 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| 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. | 94.953 | −0.357 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.354 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.354) = 0.795.
| Score | 0.687 |
|---|
| Score | 27 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable. Package and imports are clear, and the class has a focused responsibility. Fields are logically organized with sensible defaults. All public methods are simple, flat, one-action-per-line getters/setters with no deep nesting. Javadoc comments clearly explain intent, constraints, and defaults, aiding understanding. Method names are descriptive, and the use of @Nullable improves contract clarity. The only minor issue is the slight redundancy of having both isLazyInit() and getLazyInit(), but this is a common spring pattern to distinguish primitive boolean semantics from nullable Boolean. Code length is concise and not bloated. Overall, it follows clean code practices consistently.
Run 2
The code is highly readable with excellent structure and clarity. It follows standard JavaBean conventions with clear field declarations, well-named getters/setters, and comprehensive Javadoc documentation that explains purpose, parameters, and return values. The class has a single responsibility and maintains flat, non-nested logic throughout. Each method performs exactly one action, and the ternary operators in the setter methods are concise without sacrificing clarity. The reading flow is natural, progressing logically through the fields and their accessors. Minor deductions only for slight verbosity in the numerous Javadoc blocks, though this documentation actually enhances maintainability.
Run 3
The code is highly readable, following a clean JavaBean pattern with clear structure and documentation. It is well-organized into fields, setters, and getters, all at a single nesting level. Intent is clear, with comprehensive Javadoc explaining non-obvious behavior. The code is concise without being terse, using simple one-line assignments and a single conditional for null handling. Action granularity is excellent, with each method performing exactly one logical operation. Reading flow is natural, with related fields and methods grouped logically. Minor deductions: the boolean isLazyInit() contains a compound condition that could be slightly clearer, and the 'automagical' wording in Javadoc is informal. Overall, this is exemplary Spring Framework style code.
Run 1
Code Structure: Fields are grouped first, followed by logically paired setters and getters. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit default constants, nullable annotations, and informative Javadocs clearly communicate behavior, including the distinction between unset and false lazy initialization. Code length: Implementation is concise, though extensive documentation and repeated accessor patterns make the class somewhat verbose. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single clear operation; the short ternary expressions remain easy to understand. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and predictable method ordering make the class easy to scan from top to bottom. Minor documentation repetition slightly reduces concision, but overall readability is excellent.
Run 2
Code Structure: Fields precede logically paired setters and getters, with consistent formatting and clear separation. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit defaults, nullable annotations, and informative Javadocs clearly explain behavior, including the distinction between unset and false lazy initialization. Code length: Implementations are concise; extensive documentation and repetitive accessors add length but are mostly justified. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single assignment or return; simple ternary expressions keep normalization readable. Reading flow: Predictable ordering and consistent method patterns make the class easy to scan. Minor drawbacks include verbose documentation and integer-based modes whose meanings require consulting external constants.
Run 3
Code Structure: Fields are grouped first, followed by logically paired setters and getters. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit defaults, nullable annotations, and helpful documentation clearly communicate behavior, including the distinction between unset and false lazy initialization. Code length: Implementations are concise, though extensive accessor documentation adds some repetition. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single assignment or return; the simple ternary expressions remain easy to understand. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and predictable method ordering make the class easy to scan. Integer-based configuration modes require consulting external constants, slightly reducing self-contained readability.