Sample
int-0166ff1bd173-I06
Invert eligible conditions and exchange their branches
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 1 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.986 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.835 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.831 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 9 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 20 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.709 | 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. | 49 | +19.6 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 280.461 | −9.255 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.795 | −7.192 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 12.022 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(12.022) = 1.
| Score | 0.986 |
|---|
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. | 46 | −0.592 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.036 | +0.59 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 82.94 | +0.534 |
| 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. | 48.595 | +0.269 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 27 | +0.197 |
| 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. | 82.94 | +0.152 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.618 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.618) = 0.835.
| Score | 0.831 |
|---|
| Score | 9 |
|---|
Run 1
This code is exceptionally readable. It defines a clear, single-purpose interface with well-named methods and comprehensive Javadoc. The structure is logical, moving from general lifecycle methods to specific context event notifications. Nesting is non-existent, contributing to a flat, easily scannable layout. Intent is unambiguous; each method name (onRefresh, onRestart, onPause, onClose) clearly describes its trigger and aligns with its one-line body. Code length is minimal yet complete, with no redundancy. Each action (stop() or start()) is on its own line, promoting clarity. The reading flow is natural, mirroring the likely lifecycle sequence: refresh, restart, pause, close. The use of default methods provides sensible default behavior while allowing customization, and documentation concisely explains each method's purpose and links to relevant context methods.
Run 2
The code is exceptionally readable. It has a clear, logical structure as an interface extending Lifecycle, with four self-explanatory default methods. Nesting is minimal to non-existent. Each method's intent is unambiguous, reinforced by concise Javadoc comments. The code length is minimal, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. Each method contains only one or two actions, maintaining a clean action granularity. The reading flow is natural, presenting methods in a logical lifecycle sequence: refresh, restart, pause, close.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It has a clear, logical structure with well-documented methods. Nesting is minimal, and each method precisely expresses its intent through concise, single-action lines. The reading flow is natural, following lifecycle events in a logical order. The primary deduction is minor verbosity from the extensive Javadoc, though this is standard and often necessary for framework interfaces.
Run 1
Code Structure: The interface is logically organized around distinct lifecycle events. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and focused Javadoc clearly explain each callback, while restart explicitly stops then starts components. Code length: The implementation is concise, and documentation adds useful context without unnecessary detail. Action granularity: Each executable line performs a single action. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and the refresh, restart, pause, close sequence make the code easy to scan and understand.
Run 2
Code Structure: A small, logically organized interface groups related lifecycle callbacks. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no conditional or loop nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and focused Javadoc clearly explain each callback; inheritance establishes the lifecycle contract. Code length: The implementation is concise, and documentation provides useful context without unnecessary complexity. Action granularity: Each statement performs exactly one action, making the stop-then-start sequence in onRestart explicit. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and the refresh, restart, pause, close ordering make the interface easy to scan and understand.
Run 3
Code Structure: A focused interface organizes lifecycle callbacks logically. Nesting: Methods have flat bodies with no conditional or loop nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and concise Javadoc clearly explain each callback, with links to relevant context operations. Code length: The implementation is concise, and documentation adds useful context rather than unnecessary verbosity. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action; restart explicitly separates stopping and starting. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and the refresh, restart, pause, and close sequence make the interface easy to follow.