Sample
int-a3f59fe66ab8-I11
Split eligible integer literals into pairs of short-named intermediate variables
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 | 18.67 | 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
This code is highly readable. It is a well-structured interface with clear, logically organized methods. Nesting is nonexistent—methods are flat and simple. Each method's intent is obvious from its name and Javadoc, with annotations like @since and @see adding helpful context. The code is concise, with no unnecessary length. Action granularity is ideal: each method contains one or two simple, clearly separable actions per line. Reading flow is natural—methods progress from general to specific lifecycle events (refresh, restart, pause, close) in a logical order. The only minor nitpick is the star import, but it's conventional in package-level interfaces. Overall, this is exemplary Spring code.
Run 3
The code is a small, well-structured Spring interface with clear intent. Each method has a single responsibility and follows a consistent pattern: onRefresh starts, onRestart stops then starts, onPause stops, and onClose stops. Javadoc comments provide useful context and reference related framework methods, enhancing clarity. Nesting is nonexistent, and action granularity is appropriate—each method body contains at most two simple statements. The reading flow is natural, with methods ordered logically. The main deduction is that the interface is somewhat minimal and relies on inherited methods, which may require prior knowledge of the Lifecycle interface, but this is reasonable for framework-level code.
Run 1
Code Structure: A clearly organized interface groups related lifecycle callbacks in a logical order. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and focused Javadocs explain each callback, while start() and stop() make the behavior explicit. Code length: The implementation is concise, with documentation providing useful context rather than unnecessary verbosity. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action; onRestart() clearly separates stopping from starting. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and the refresh, restart, pause, and close sequence make the code easy to follow.
Run 2
Code Structure: A focused interface groups lifecycle callbacks logically. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no conditional or loop nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and concise Javadoc clearly explain each callback and its relationship to context operations. Code length: The implementation is compact, with documentation that adds useful context rather than unnecessary verbosity. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action; onRestart explicitly separates stopping from starting. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and the refresh, restart, pause, close ordering make the code easy to scan and understand.
Run 3
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; restart explicitly stops before starting. Code length: The implementation is concise, and documentation adds useful context without unnecessary complexity. Action granularity: Each statement performs one lifecycle action on its own line. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and the refresh, restart, pause, close sequence make the code easy to scan and understand.