Sample
int-35c843334bc9-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 | 0.891 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.273 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.508 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 31 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 10 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 14 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.542 | 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. | 2155.893 | −71.144 |
| 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. | 4.613 | −6.919 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -15.594 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-15.594) = 0.
| Score | 0.891 |
|---|
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. | 133.802 | +1.46 |
| 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. | 96.296 | +0.749 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.033 | +0.624 |
| 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. | 99.993 | −0.57 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -0.981 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-0.981) = 0.273.
| Score | 0.508 |
|---|
| Score | 31 |
|---|
Run 1
The code has reasonably clear documentation and logical structure, but parameter names like 'a', 'b', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', and method names like 'a(String h)' or 'b(char c)' severely undermine readability. These non-descriptive names obscure intent despite the Javadoc. The overall organization is clean, with flat nesting and one action per line, but the generic naming makes the reading flow disjointed. The safe-range logic is understandable but would benefit from clearer variable naming. The class is concise overall, but the obfuscated identifiers require mental mapping that increases cognitive load.
Run 2
The code has good structural elements like clear field declarations, useful comments, and logical separation of methods. However, readability is severely undermined by the use of meaningless parameter and method names (a, b, d, f, g, h, c, j). The public API method names have been obfuscated, obscuring intent. The constructor parameter names do not match the documented parameters (replacementMap, safeMin, safeMax), creating confusion. Several lines combine multiple actions, such as the condition in escape(String) which mixes array lookup, null check, and range comparison in one expression. The nested logic in escape(char) adds some complexity but remains manageable. While the class-level Javadoc is excellent, the mismatch between documentation and actual identifiers breaks reading flow and clarity of intent. The code structure is reasonable but the naming choices and action density drop the score significantly.
Run 3
The code has clear documentation and logical structure, but variable names like 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', and 'j' completely obscure intent. Method names 'a', 'b', and 'escapeSlow' are unhelpful. The one-letter parameter names make the constructor and methods extremely hard to understand without reading the doc comments carefully. Comments are helpful but cannot compensate for poor naming. Nesting is reasonable and actions are mostly one per line, keeping structure flat. However, the use of renamed identifiers (likely stripped/deobfuscated) destroys clarity and readability. Overall, the code structure is okay but readability is severely hurt by ambiguous naming.
Run 1
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized with clear separation of responsibilities. Nesting: Shallow loops and conditionals, aided by early returns, keep control flow manageable. Clarity of intent: Descriptive field names and extensive documentation explain the algorithm, but opaque names such as a, b, and j obscure method and parameter roles. Documentation references escapeUnsafe and parameter names that do not match the declarations, making navigation confusing. Code length: Implementation is concise; documentation is useful but somewhat repetitive. Action granularity: Nearly every statement performs one action, with no compressed multi-statement lines. Reading flow: Constructor delegation and sequential replacement/safety checks create a natural progression, although inconsistent naming, mismatched documentation, and the compound scanning condition require extra interpretation.
Run 2
Code Structure: Constructors, fields, and escaping methods are logically organized with clear separation of responsibilities. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with at most two nested conditionals and helpful early returns. Clarity of intent: Descriptive field names and extensive documentation explain the algorithm, but arbitrary names such as a, b, e, and j obscure parameters and methods. Documentation references escapeUnsafe and parameter names that do not match the declarations, further reducing clarity. Code length: Executable code is concise, although repeated constructor documentation and obvious field comments add bulk. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line; the compound escape condition is dense but manageable. Reading flow: Initialization followed by string scanning and character handling provides a natural progression, but ambiguous method names and inconsistent documentation interrupt comprehension.
Run 3
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized with clear separation of responsibilities. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with at most a loop and conditional or two nested conditionals. Clarity of intent: Descriptive field names and extensive documentation explain the algorithm, but arbitrary parameter names and methods named a and b obscure purpose. Documentation references escapeUnsafe and parameter names that do not match the declarations, further reducing clarity. Code length: Implementation is concise, though repeated constructor documentation and verbose comments increase reading length. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action; the compound escape condition is reasonably readable but requires careful parsing. Reading flow: Constructor delegation and early returns provide a natural progression, interrupted by inconsistent naming and stale documentation.