Sample
int-42d67a97bd1e-SRC
Unmodified source class
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.822 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.527 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.217 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 6 | 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 | 0.806 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 1055.401 | −34.828 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 61 | +24.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 5.161 | −7.741 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -9.3 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-9.3) = 0.
| Score | 0.822 |
|---|
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. | 62 | −1.159 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 103.968 | +0.873 |
| 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. | 103.968 | −0.738 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.04 | +0.552 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 60.905 | +0.441 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 33 | +0.404 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 33 | −0.336 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.107 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.107) = 0.527.
| Score | 0.217 |
|---|
| Score | 6 |
|---|
Run 1
This code is exceptionally readable. Structure is logical with clear class-level Javadoc explaining purpose, deprecation, and usage. Imports are clean. Nesting is essentially flat; no complex conditional or loop structures exist. Intent is unambiguous: the class provides CBOR message conversion via Jackson, with clear constructors and a setter. Code length is minimal and focused, avoiding unnecessary boilerplate. Each method performs one clear action or delegates appropriately, and the constructor chaining is concise. The reading flow is natural from class documentation to constructors to override methods. Assertions are used effectively to enforce preconditions without clutter.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It follows a logical structure with clear Javadoc, constructors, and a single overridden method. Nesting is minimal and flow is natural. The purpose is unequivocal: a Spring HTTP message converter for CBOR using Jackson. Code length is concise and appropriate, with little redundancy. Each constructor performs one primary action, and the override clearly validates the ObjectMapper before delegating to the superclass. Minor improvements could include grouping imports or clarifying the rationale for the assertion, but overall the intent, structure, and flow are excellent.
Run 3
The code is highly readable due to its clear structure and logical organization. The class has a single responsibility, and the constructors are short and focused. Nesting is minimal, with no deep indentation or conditional complexity. Intent is clearly expressed through meaningful method names and Javadoc. The action granularity is appropriate, with one action per line in key operations like constructor delegation and validation. The reading flow is natural, guiding the reader from class overview to specific methods. Minor deductions for slight repetition in validation logic and the deprecation annotations adding noise, but overall the code is concise and easy to understand.
Run 1
Code Structure: Logically organized into imports, class documentation, constructors, and an overridden setter. Nesting: Flat method bodies with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit CBORFactory validation, and useful documentation clearly communicate purpose and configuration requirements. Code length: Implementation is concise; documentation is somewhat verbose but informative. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single clear action, with constructor delegation avoiding duplicated initialization. Reading flow: Natural progression from default construction to custom configuration and mapper replacement. Minor spacing inconsistencies and long documentation links slightly reduce readability.
Run 2
Code Structure: Logically organized into constructors and an overridden setter, with configuration validation placed alongside initialization. Nesting: Flat methods with no conditional or loop nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit CBORFactory checks, and useful Javadoc clearly communicate purpose and requirements. Code length: Implementation is concise; documentation is somewhat verbose but relevant. Action granularity: Each statement performs one main action, with short builder chaining that remains understandable. Reading flow: Imports, class documentation, constructors, and setter follow a natural order. Minor formatting inconsistencies, including extra blank lines and no separation after the package declaration, slightly reduce polish.
Run 3
Code Structure: Logically organized into constructors and an overridden setter, with shared conversion behavior delegated to the superclass. Nesting: Flat methods with no conditional or loop nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit CBORFactory validation, and helpful Javadoc clearly communicate purpose and configuration requirements. Code length: Implementation is concise; documentation is somewhat verbose but useful, and repeated validation is minor. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action; constructor chaining and the builder expression are straightforward. Reading flow: Natural progression from class documentation to default construction, custom construction, and mapper replacement. Minor formatting inconsistencies, such as extra blank lines and no separation between the package declaration and imports, slightly reduce polish.