Sample
int-ecb86316517a-I06
Invert eligible conditions and exchange their branches
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.849 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.238 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.468 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 31 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 11.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 13.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.56 | 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. | 2350.045 | −77.551 |
| 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. | 4.621 | −6.931 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -22.012 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-22.012) = 0.
| Score | 0.849 |
|---|
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. | 133.796 | +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. | 105.356 | +0.895 |
| 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. | 106.963 | −0.865 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.036 | +0.589 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.165 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.165) = 0.238.
| Score | 0.468 |
|---|
| Score | 31 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is moderately readable due to good documentation and clear field naming, but is significantly hindered by bizarre inverted conditionals. The patterns 'if (!(condition)) {} else { ... }' are confusing and disrupt natural reading flow, making the logic harder to follow than necessary. Additionally, the constructor and escape method arguments are swapped from their declaration order, and the class has relatively high complexity with multiple responsibilities. While the overall structure and conceptual clarity are acceptable, the unnatural conditional style and occasional verbosity prevent higher readability.
Run 2
The code has good Javadoc documentation and clear field/variable names, but readability is severely impacted by unusual inverted conditional patterns using empty if blocks with else statements. For example, `if (!((safeMax < safeMin))) {} else { ... }` and `if (!(((c < replacementsLength && replacements[c] != null) || c > safeMax || c < safeMin))) {} else { ... }` are confusing and break natural reading flow. The double negation and empty blocks force readers to mentally invert logic, violating the 'one action per line' and 'clear intent' principles. The class structure is logical and the code length is reasonable, but the nesting complexity from these inverted conditionals makes the logic hard to follow. The safe range adjustment in the constructor could be clearer with a simple direct condition rather than the awkward empty if/else pattern.
Run 3
The code is generally well-structured with clear class-level documentation, meaningful field names, and logical method organization. However, readability is notably hampered by several awkward inverted conditional constructs (e.g., `if (!((safeMax < safeMin))) {} else { ... }`), which appear to be artifacts of a debugger or automated transformation. These empty blocks and double negatives obscure intent and break reading flow. The `escape(String)` method likewise contains a convoluted condition with an empty `if` block, making it difficult to follow at a glance. Method lengths are reasonable, and action granularity is mostly one-per-line, but the unnatural conditionals reduce clarity and make the code feel tangled despite the otherwise clean structure. Comments are helpful, though some explain what could be clearer through simpler logic.
Run 1
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized with clear responsibilities. Nesting: Generally shallow, with only a loop and a small nested replacement check. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement lookup and safe ranges, but negated conditions, redundant parentheses, and empty if branches obscure straightforward decisions. Code length: Implementation is reasonably concise; repeated constructor documentation and unnecessary conditional syntax add bulk. Action granularity: Most lines perform a single action, although inline empty branches and else clauses compress control flow awkwardly. Reading flow: Constructor delegation and early returns support natural progression, but repeatedly placing meaningful work in else branches forces readers to mentally invert conditions. Direct positive conditions would substantially improve readability.
Run 2
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized with clear responsibilities. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with only a loop and a small nested replacement check. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain the escaping rules, but repeated negated conditions with empty if branches and operative else branches obscure straightforward logic. Code length: Implementation is reasonably concise, though duplicated constructor documentation and redundant parentheses add bulk. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action per line, but inline empty branches compress control flow awkwardly. Reading flow: Method ordering and early returns are natural; however, inverted conditionals repeatedly force readers to mentally simplify expressions, particularly the compound condition in escape(String). Replacing these constructs with direct positive conditions would substantially improve readability.
Run 3
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, with clear separation of responsibilities. Nesting: Mostly shallow, although empty if branches followed by else blocks introduce unnecessary structural complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain the escaping rules, but negated conditions, redundant parentheses, and empty branches obscure otherwise straightforward checks. Code length: Implementation is reasonably concise; repeated constructor documentation and verbose conditional syntax add avoidable length. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action, but compressed empty-if/else statements combine control-flow elements and hinder scanning. Reading flow: The class progresses naturally from configuration to string and character escaping, yet readers must repeatedly mentally invert conditions to understand the active branches. Replacing these constructs with direct positive conditions would substantially improve readability.