Sample
int-f1e207bc82dd-I02
Shorten method, parameter, and local names without collisions
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.867 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.274 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.477 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 31 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 16.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15 | 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. | 2162.197 | −71.352 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 134 | +53.6 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.611 | −6.917 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -15.8 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-15.8) = 0.
| Score | 0.867 |
|---|
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. | 135 | −3.744 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 64 | +1.477 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 133.871 | +1.461 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 64 | −1.048 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 96.244 | +0.748 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.032 | +0.63 |
| 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. | 99.985 | −0.57 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -0.975 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-0.975) = 0.274.
| Score | 0.477 |
|---|
| Score | 31 |
|---|
Run 1
The class is well-structured and follows typical Java conventions, with logical organization of fields, constructors, and methods, and clear separation of concerns via utility methods. Nesting is shallow everywhere, and intent is mostly clear with meaningful names and helpful Javadoc. However, there are notable readability issues: parameter names like `safe`, `safe2`, `safe3`, `safe4` are misleading and inconsistent with the documentation; the single-character variable names `c`, `s`, `i` are acceptable but `cha` is less conventional. The `esc(String)` method crams multiple actions into a single long if-statement, reducing clarity and action granularity. The constructor has a slightly obscure comment about setting extremes. While the code is fairly concise, some lines are dense and would benefit from being split for improved reading flow. Overall, it is reasonably readable but has localized areas where clarity could be improved.
Run 2
The code is well-structured with clear separation of concerns, appropriate documentation, and logical organization. It maintains flat nesting throughout, with only two-level conditionals at most. Intent is clearly expressed through descriptive method names, comprehensive Javadoc, and inline comments explaining non-obvious decisions like the safe range inversion and GWT-specific checks. Code length is appropriate given the domain complexity. Action granularity is good, with one logical operation per line. Reading flow is natural, moving from class documentation through fields, constructors, and methods in a logical progression. Minor deductions for the awkward parameter names (safe/safe2, safe3/safe4) that could be more descriptive, and the slightly dense conditional in the escape method that combines multiple checks on one line.
Run 3
The code is well-structured and highly readable. It has clear separation of concerns with logical field grouping and well-documented class/method purposes. Nesting depth is minimal (3 levels at most), and each line performs a single action. The constructor overloads, while slightly redundant in documentation, are clearly intented. Parameter names like 'safe', 'safe2', 'safe3', 'safe4' are ambiguous and detract from readability, though the accompanying Javadoc clarifies their meaning. The 'esc' method is concise and efficient, with a readble flow and good performance-oriented comments. Overall, the code maintains strong clarity, though minor improvements to parameter naming would make it even more readable.
Run 1
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, with clear separation of responsibilities. Nesting: Shallow loops and conditionals, plus early returns, keep control flow easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Extensive documentation explains the algorithm, but names such as safe2, safe3, safe4, cha, and esc obscure meaning. Constructor documentation uses parameter names that do not match the signatures, and references to escapeUnsafe conflict with the declared escape method. Code length: Implementation is concise; repeated constructor documentation adds some unnecessary length. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, although the combined replacement-and-range condition requires careful reading. Reading flow: Initialization, fast string scanning, and character handling follow a natural sequence, but inconsistent naming and documentation interrupt comprehension.
Run 2
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized with clear separation of responsibilities. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with at most two nested conditional levels. Clarity of intent: Detailed documentation explains replacement lookup and safe-range behavior, but vague names such as safe2, safe3, safe4, and cha reduce clarity. Documentation references escapeUnsafe and parameter names that do not match the implementation, while esc versus escape makes the method roles harder to distinguish. Code length: Implementation is concise, although constructor documentation is repetitive. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line; the combined lookup and range condition is compact but requires careful reading. Reading flow: Constructor delegation and early returns provide a natural progression, weakened by inconsistent naming and documentation mismatches.
Run 3
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically grouped, with clear separation of responsibilities. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, using early returns and only one nested conditional. Clarity of intent: Class documentation explains the algorithm well, but names such as safe2, safe3, safe4, cha, and esc obscure meaning. Documentation references escapeUnsafe and parameter names that do not match the declarations, adding confusion. Code length: Implementation is concise; extensive documentation is useful but somewhat repetitive. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, although the string-scanning condition combines several checks. Reading flow: Initialization followed by string and character processing is natural, but inconsistent naming and stale documentation interrupt understanding.