Sample
int-ff2ffea39427-I05
Rewrite eligible decimal integer literals in hexadecimal notation
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.999 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.602 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.234 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.012 | 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 | 0.637 | 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. | 22 | +8.8 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.749 | −7.124 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 106.198 | −3.505 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 7.042 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(7.042) = 0.999.
| Score | 0.602 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 220 | −5.653 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 220 | +2.745 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 1 | +1.001 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.013 | +0.817 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 8 | −0.46 |
| 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. | 21.905 | −0.104 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.186 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.186) = 0.234.
| Score | 0.012 |
|---|
| Score | 1 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is a well-documented, single-purpose interface. It has a clear logical structure, with a concise Javadoc explaining intent, context, and usage. There is no nesting, and the single method declaration makes the action granularity and reading flow straightforward. The code length is minimal and appropriate for an interface definition. The only minor deduction is that the Javadoc could be slightly shorter, but it remains highly readable overall.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It defines a single-purpose interface with a clear Javadoc explaining its role in SockJS frame formatting. The structure is logical: a package declaration, a well-written documentation block, and one method. Nesting is non-existent. The intent is explicit, the code is concise without unnecessary length, and the single method declaration keeps action granularity clean. The reading flow is natural and professional.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It is a single, focused interface with one method, making its intent immediately clear. The Javadoc provides excellent context: it explains the purpose, where it’s used, and points to implementations for further understanding. The structure is flat, with no nesting or multiple actions per line. The length is concise, containing only necessary documentation and code. The reading flow is natural, starting with a clear description and ending with the simple method signature.
Run 1
Code Structure: A minimal, logically organized interface with one method. Nesting: No nested control flow or unnecessary structural complexity. Clarity of intent: The interface name, method signature, and Javadoc clearly explain transport-specific SockJS frame formatting, though the method lacks documentation of its return value. Code length: Concise implementation; the documentation is useful, but its long cross-reference slightly reduces readability. Action granularity: The single method declaration occupies its own line, with no combined actions. Reading flow: Natural progression from package declaration to explanatory documentation and interface definition.
Run 2
Code Structure: A logically organized interface with a single, focused method. Nesting: No nested control flow or unnecessary structural complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive interface and method names, typed input, and detailed Javadoc clearly establish the transport-specific formatting purpose; method-level documentation could clarify the returned value. Code length: The implementation is minimal, with mostly useful documentation, although the long Javadoc link slightly reduces readability. Action granularity: The sole method declaration occupies its own line and expresses one responsibility. Reading flow: The conventional package, documentation, interface, and method ordering makes the code easy to follow.
Run 3
Code Structure: A clean, logically organized interface with a single responsibility. Nesting: No nested control flow or unnecessary structural depth. Clarity of intent: The interface name, method signature, and Javadoc clearly explain transport-specific SockJS frame formatting, though the method lacks explicit parameter and return documentation. Code length: The implementation is minimal; the explanatory documentation is useful, but the long fully qualified Javadoc link adds visual clutter. Action granularity: The sole method declaration occupies its own line, with no combined actions. Reading flow: Package declaration, documentation, interface, and method follow a natural Java layout.