Sample
int-ced7eddff29a-I12
Inline all eligible single-use intermediate local variables
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.996 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.879 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.343 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.039 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 23 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.63 | 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. | 168 | +67.2 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 1935.261 | −63.864 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.399 | −6.598 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 5.608 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(5.608) = 0.996.
| Score | 0.879 |
|---|
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. | 169 | −4.947 |
| 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. | 85 | +2.203 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 167.953 | +1.938 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 148.982 | +1.599 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.021 | +0.735 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -0.65 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-0.65) = 0.343.
| Score | 0.039 |
|---|
| Score | 23 |
|---|
Run 1
This is an excellent example of readable code. The interface is well-structured with clear separation of concerns, grouping related methods logically. The Javadoc comments are thorough and provide clear intent for each method and parameter. Nesting is minimal (only one inner interface), and the code maintains a flat, easily scannable structure. Action granularity is perfect - each method signature occupies a single line. The reading flow is natural, with related operations (config, restart, logging) organized coherently. The code is concise without being overly terse. Minor deductions: the long method signature for putConnectorConfig could be formatted more cleanly, and the claimWritePrivileges default method interrupts the method flow slightly. Overall, this represents near-ideal interface design for maintainability and clarity.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It defines a clear interface (ConfigBackingStore) with a logical structure: lifecycle methods first, then configuration access/mutation, then specialized operations, and finally a nested listener interface. Nesting is minimal; only the UpdateListener interface is nested, which is appropriate. Javadocs are extensive and explain intent clearly for every method, including edge cases like null targetState and timeout behavior. Method names are descriptive, and signatures are concise. The code length is appropriate for an API surface—not verbose beyond necessary documentation. Each method declaration is a single action, maintaining clean granularity. Reading flow is natural and follows a consistent grouping (start/stop, snapshot, connector configs, task configs, refresh, target state, session, restart, task count, write privileges, logging, listener). The only minor deduction is the default method implementation, which is slightly less explicit but still documented clearly.
Run 3
This interface is a model of readable code. It is logically organized, grouping related methods and including a nested UpdateListener interface. There is no unnecessary nesting. Javadoc comments clearly define the purpose of each method, parameters, and exceptions, leaving no ambiguity about intent. The code is concise: each method signature is minimal and appropriate for an interface. Action granularity is effectively one method per line, and the reading flow is natural, starting with lifecycle methods, then configuration operations, state updates, and listener registration. Overall, it demonstrates excellent structure, clarity, and maintainability.
Run 1
Code Structure: Well-organized interface with related storage operations and a separate nested listener contract; explicit grouping could improve navigation. Nesting: Minimal, limited to the listener interface and an empty default method. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, types, and detailed Javadocs clearly explain responsibilities and important semantics, although start() and stop() lack documentation. Code length: Declarations are concise; documentation adds useful context but occasionally uses lengthy lines and repetitive descriptions. Action granularity: Each method declaration represents one distinct operation, with no compressed multi-action statements. Reading flow: Consistent spacing and documentation make scanning natural, though lifecycle, configuration, coordination, and logging methods could be grouped more explicitly.
Run 2
Code Structure: A well-organized interface separates storage operations from update callbacks in a nested listener interface. Nesting: Minimal and appropriate, with no deeply nested logic. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, explicit types, and comprehensive Javadoc make responsibilities clear; start() and stop() lack lifecycle documentation. Code length: Method declarations are concise, although repetitive documentation and several long comment lines increase scanning effort. Action granularity: Each declaration represents one operation, with no compound statements. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and related connector/task methods support natural reading, though lifecycle, refresh, write privileges, and miscellaneous operations could be grouped more deliberately. Overall, highly readable with minor documentation and organization improvements possible.
Run 3
Code Structure: The interface is logically organized around configuration storage operations, with notification callbacks grouped in a dedicated nested interface. Nesting: Minimal nesting keeps declarations easy to scan. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, explicit types, and detailed Javadocs clearly explain most operations and constraints; start() and stop() lack documentation. Code length: Declarations are concise, though repetitive Javadocs and some long comment lines increase visual length. Action granularity: Each method declaration represents a single operation, with no compressed multi-action lines. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and related operations placed together support natural reading, although lifecycle, configuration, coordination, and logging methods could be grouped more explicitly. Overall, highly readable with minor documentation and formatting improvements possible.