Sample
int-ef5bdef67f28-I04
Replace method, parameter, and local names with deterministic ProGuard-style short identifiers
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.868 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.039 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.131 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 58 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 3.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 10 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.57 | 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. | 5098.954 | −168.265 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 291 | +116.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.745 | −7.117 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -50.112 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-50.112) = 0.
| Score | 0.868 |
|---|
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. | 292 | −9.302 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 162 | +4.866 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 290.861 | +3.656 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 162 | −3.297 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 97.603 | +0.77 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.035 | +0.603 |
| 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. | 99.962 | −0.569 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -3.202 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-3.202) = 0.039.
| Score | 0.131 |
|---|
| Score | 58 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is heavily obfuscated and nearly unreadable. Identifiers like 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f' and single-letter parameter names ('K', 'L', 'M', 'N', etc.) completely obscure intent. The structure is tangled: method names are scrambled between active and inactive chain implementations, and the anonymous ACTIVE class has methods named inconsistently with the public abstract declarations. Deep conceptual nesting arises from mismatched method names across classes. There is no action granularity or natural reading flow; even documented methods do not align with their names. Documentation is extensive but does not compensate for the wholesale renaming of core comparison operations to meaningless letters. The code length is reasonable, but clarity is severely degraded by the identifier choices. Overall, this appears deliberately obfuscated and would be extremely difficult to maintain or review.
Run 2
This code is severely obfuscated by meaningless one-letter method and variable names (a, b, c, d, e, f, etc.). It completely destroys clarity of intent, making the logic extremely difficult to follow despite the otherwise straightforward structure. While the class has a clear purpose and reasonable organization, the naming makes it effectively unreadable. Nesting is moderate but obscured by the naming. Code length is acceptable but verbose Javadoc doesn't compensate for cryptic implementation. Action granularity is fine on a line level, but reading flow is disastrous due to identifiers like 'b' being used for both methods and parameters with different types, making it nearly impossible to determine what any line does without extensive mental mapping.
Run 3
The code is severely obfuscated by meaningless single-letter or cryptic method and parameter names (e.g., methods a(), b(), c(), d(), e(), f(); parameters like K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, aa, ab, ac). This makes intent completely opaque. The original method names (compare, result, etc.) appear to have been replaced, destroying clarity. While the structure is somewhat logical (active vs inactive chain), the nesting is moderate and the reading flow is unnatural due to the obfuscated names. There are excessive overloads making the class long. The documentation is extensive but describes methods that no longer exist under those names, worsening confusion. This appears intentionally obfuscated, not simply poorly written.
Run 1
Code Structure: Active and inactive states are logically separated, but inconsistent override names obscure their relationship to the abstract API. Nesting: Mostly shallow; the anonymous class and nested ternary add modest complexity. Clarity of intent: Documentation explains chained comparison well, but single-letter method and parameter names conceal meaning. Examples and links reference names absent from the actual API, further confusing readers. Code length: Individual methods are concise, though repetitive overloads and extensive documentation make navigation lengthy. Action granularity: Most lines perform one clear action; nested comparison calls and the ternary compress several steps. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and grouping help, but readers must repeatedly reconcile documentation, declarations, and mismatched implementations.
Run 2
Code Structure: Active and inactive comparison states are logically separated, but inconsistent override names obscure their relationship to the abstract API. Nesting: Generally shallow; the anonymous class and nested ternary introduce only modest complexity. Clarity of intent: Documentation explains chained comparison well, but single-letter method and parameter names conceal meaning. Examples, links, and replacement annotations reference names absent from the actual API, further confusing readers. Code length: Individual methods are concise, although repeated overloads and extensive documentation make the class lengthy. Much of this repetition is justified by type coverage. Action granularity: Methods usually perform one clear operation per line, with compact comparison-and-classification expressions. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and grouped overloads support scanning, but readers must repeatedly reconcile documentation with renamed methods and mismatched inactive overrides.
Run 3
Code Structure: Active and inactive comparison states are logically separated, with consistently grouped overloads, but inconsistent override names obscure their relationship. Nesting: Methods are mostly flat; the anonymous class and nested ternary introduce only modest complexity. Clarity of intent: Documentation explains the algorithm well, but single-letter method and parameter names severely weaken readability. Examples and links reference names absent from the actual API, and inactive methods do not match the abstract declarations. Code length: Individual methods are concise, although extensive documentation and repetitive overloads make the file lengthy. Action granularity: Most lines perform a single action, with compact comparison-and-classification expressions remaining manageable. Reading flow: Formatting and method grouping are consistent, but readers must repeatedly reconcile documentation with renamed methods and trace ambiguous identifiers, especially the e(e.compare(...)) expression.