Sample
int-b067689e1fcc-I09
Select one of ten low-readability unrelated code templates per class
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 1 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.899 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.728 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.399 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 1 | 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 | 0.747 | 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. | 51 | +20.4 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 382.574 | −12.625 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.905 | −7.358 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 9.288 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(9.288) = 1.
| Score | 0.899 |
|---|
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. | 52 | −0.805 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.015 | +0.793 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 95.962 | +0.744 |
| 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. | 95.981 | −0.4 |
| 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. | 50.845 | +0.301 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 18 | −0.115 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.986 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.986) = 0.728.
| Score | 0.399 |
|---|
| Score | 1 |
|---|
Run 1
This code demonstrates excellent readability. The interface is well-structured with clear separation between documentation, constants, and the method signature. Javadoc comments are thorough and explain the purpose, parameters, and exceptions in detail. The method signature is concise yet descriptive, with clear parameter names (ps, paramIndex, sqlType, typeName) and proper use of @Nullable annotation. Nesting is minimal since this is a single interface declaration. The code follows Spring Framework conventions, making it familiar to experienced Java developers. While the Javadoc is comprehensive, it's not excessive for a public API. The single constant TYPE_UNKNOWN is well-documented. The code achieves strong clarity of intent - it clearly defines a callback interface for setting complex SQL type values. Overall, this is exemplary Java API code that balances thorough documentation with clean implementation.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. The interface is logically structured with a clear Javadoc explaining its purpose, usage, and contract. Nesting is nonexistent (flat interface structure). Intent is unambiguous — both the class-level documentation and method signature convey the responsibility of setting database-specific values. Code length is concise; there is no unnecessary code. Action granularity is appropriate: the constant declaration and method signature are cleanly separated. Reading flow is natural, from package declaration to imports, documentation, constant, and method. Minor deductions: a slightly long Javadoc could be trimmed, but it improves clarity rather than hurting readability.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It is a well-structured Java interface with a clear single responsibility. Nesting is non-existent, as expected for an interface. The intent is explicit: defining a callback for setting database-specific values. Code length is concise and appropriate, providing necessary documentation without redundancy. Action granularity is clean, with each declaration and annotation on its own line where applicable. Reading flow is natural, beginning with imports, followed by Javadocs, constant declaration, and method signature. Minor deductions: the Javadoc is somewhat verbose, and the use of @Nullable annotation is clear but could be referenced in the method docs. Overall, it follows Spring framework conventions and is easy to understand for a developer familiar with JDBC.
Run 1
Code Structure: Cleanly organized into imports, interface documentation, a constant, and a single callback declaration. Nesting: Minimal, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive Javadoc explain the interface's purpose, parameters, nullability, and exception behavior; 'ps' is slightly abbreviated. Code length: The implementation is concise, although some documentation is repetitive. Action granularity: Each declaration has a distinct purpose, with no combined actions. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression and consistent formatting make the code easy to scan; minor excess blank space and tightly grouped package/import lines slightly reduce polish.
Run 2
Code Structure: Logically organized into package, imports, interface documentation, constant, and method declaration. Nesting: Flat, with only the interface scope and no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive Javadoc clearly explain the database-specific parameter-setting contract; nullability is explicit. Code length: The implementation is concise, though documentation contains minor repetition and extra blank lines. Action granularity: Each declaration serves one purpose, and the wrapped method signature remains easy to follow. Reading flow: Conventional Java ordering and documentation placement provide a natural progression. Minor drawbacks are the abbreviated parameter name 'ps' and slightly verbose introductory documentation.
Run 3
Code Structure: Clearly organized into package, imports, interface documentation, constant, and callback declaration. Nesting: Flat, with no nested control flow or complex blocks. Clarity of intent: Descriptive interface and method names, detailed Javadoc, and the nullable annotation make the contract explicit; 'ps' is slightly abbreviated but documented. Code length: The interface is concise, though some documentation is repetitive. Action granularity: Each declaration has a single responsibility, and the wrapped method signature remains easy to follow. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression with useful whitespace and documentation placed directly beside the relevant declarations.