Sample
int-2c733e911146-I07
Insert deterministic runtime-dead branches into callable bodies
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.526 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.877 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.155 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.039 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 25 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.394 | 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. | 2125.153 | −70.13 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 170 | +68 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.424 | −6.635 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 0.104 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.104) = 0.526.
| Score | 0.877 |
|---|
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. | 145 | −4.098 |
| 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. | 148.994 | −2.646 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 87 | +2.272 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 169.973 | +1.966 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 148.971 | +1.599 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 87 | −1.576 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.023 | +0.717 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.694 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.694) = 0.155.
| Score | 0.039 |
|---|
| Score | 25 |
|---|
Run 1
This code is highly readable. It's a well-organized Java interface with clear structure, using logical method grouping and consistent Javadoc for every method. The code is completely flat with no nesting except for the single default method, which is intentionally a no-op. Intent is clear for each method through descriptive names and thorough documentation. No unnecessary verbosity exists; code length is appropriate for the API surface. Action granularity is naturally one per line due to interface declarations. Reading flow is natural: start/stop lifecycle, then queries, config mutations, target state, session/restart operations, logging, and listener setup. The only minor issue is the odd obfuscated no-op line in claimWritePrivileges(), which slightly degrades clarity but doesn't affect readability overall.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It is an interface definition with clear, logical organization. The structure is flat with no deep nesting, and each method declaration is concise and self-explanatory. Javadoc comments are thorough and provide clear intent for each operation. The code length is appropriate, and actions are well-granularized—one method per action. The reading flow is natural, with related methods grouped logically (e.g., startup/shutdown, snapshot, connector config, task config, refresh, target state, session key, restart, task count, privileges, logging, and listener). The only minor issue is a stray line inside the default method (an empty if statement with an assertion) that appears to be dead code and slightly reduces clarity. Otherwise, the code adheres strongly to readability best practices.
Run 3
The code is a clean, well-structured Java interface with clear intent. It demonstrates good organization: methods are logically grouped, each has a concise Javadoc comment, and there is minimal nesting. The reading flow is natural, moving from lifecycle methods to configuration operations to listener definitions. Action granularity is appropriate—one action per method. However, there are minor readability issues: a useless obfuscated line inside the default method that serves no purpose, and some methods have longer parameter lists or dense Javadoc that slightly reduce clarity. Overall, it is highly readable and maintainable.
Run 1
Code Structure: The interface is logically organized, separating storage operations from update callbacks. Nesting: Minimal nesting; the inner listener interface is appropriate and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, types, and Javadoc clearly explain most operations. However, claimWritePrivileges contains an unexplained, always-false hexadecimal XOR condition that obscures its documented no-op purpose. Code length: Declarations are concise, although repetitive documentation and several long comment lines add bulk. Action granularity: Most lines contain a single declaration; the inline conditional and throw statement are an inconsistent exception. Reading flow: Consistent spacing and documentation generally support natural reading, but the unindented dead-code statement disrupts the otherwise clean presentation.
Run 2
Code Structure: Logically organized interface with a clearly separated update-listener interface. Nesting: Minimal, limited to the listener interface and a single conditional. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, types, and Javadocs explain most operations well; however, the always-false hexadecimal XOR condition in claimWritePrivileges is distracting and obscures the documented no-op behavior. Code length: Appropriate for the API breadth, though some documentation is repetitive and several lines are overly long. Action granularity: Declarations generally occupy individual lines, but the conditional and throw statement are compressed onto one line. Reading flow: Consistent spacing and documentation make the interface easy to scan, interrupted by the unindented, unnecessary conditional and minor import-formatting issues.
Run 3
Code Structure: Well-organized interface with related configuration operations and a separate nested listener interface. Nesting: Minimal, with no deep control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and thorough Javadocs make most responsibilities clear; however, the constant-false hexadecimal XOR condition in claimWritePrivileges is pointless and distracting. Code length: Appropriate for the API's scope, though some documentation is repetitive and several lines are overly long. Action granularity: Most declarations occupy individual lines, but the inline condition and throw compress multiple elements onto one line. Reading flow: Generally natural and consistent, interrupted by the unindented, unexplained assertion statement and minor spacing inconsistencies.