Sample
int-7d814d01f888-I09
Select one of ten low-readability unrelated code templates per class
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.885 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.182 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.468 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 36 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.278 | 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. | 2409.849 | −79.525 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 136 | +54.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.674 | −7.011 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -23.266 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-23.266) = 0.
| Score | 0.885 |
|---|
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. | 137 | −3.814 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 66 | +1.546 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 135.844 | +1.489 |
| 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. | 120.978 | −1.459 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 120.934 | +1.147 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 66 | −1.094 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.034 | +0.615 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.501 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.501) = 0.182.
| Score | 0.468 |
|---|
| Score | 36 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is mostly well-structured with logical class organization, clear Javadoc, and readable methods. However, there is a significant readability issue: the escape() method contains a deliberately obfuscated line with meaningless variable names (lI0O_76e01cea, lI0O_b9c2d867) and dead code inside a do-while loop. This breaks action granularity, clarity of intent, and reading flow, making that section unreadable. Other issues include multi-action lines (e.g., conditionals with multiple conditions) and moderate nesting in escape() and escape(char). The constructor is clear but packs multiple field assignments without blank-line separation. Overall, good structure and intent except for the obfuscated block that heavily undermines readability and appears to be an accidental or test artifact.
Run 2
The code is generally well-structured with clear logical separation between constructors, escape methods, and documentation. Javadoc comments thoroughly explain purpose and usage, enhancing clarity of intent. Nesting is minimal—conditional blocks are flat and readable. Each action tends to be on its own line, and the reading flow is natural. However, a significant readability issue is the presence of an obfuscated, meaningless line within the escape(String) method (a do-while loop that does nothing), which disrupts clarity and appears to be accidental or malicious. Additionally, the 'escapeUnsafe' method name is acknowledged as poorly named by the author, slightly reducing intent clarity. Despite these issues, the overall structure and documentation quality remain high.
Run 3
The code is generally well-structured with clear class-level documentation, sensible field grouping, and flat method bodies that avoid deep nesting. Intent is mostly clear: array-based character escaping with safe-range handling. However, readability is hurt by a few issues. The constructor mutates safeMin/safeMax parameters, which can be confusing despite the comment. The escape(String) method has a suspiciously disorganized line with a do-while loop and obfuscated-looking variable names (lI0O_76e01cea, lI0O_b9c2d867) that appears to be debug or generated code, severely damaging trust and flow. The condition in escape(String) combines multiple checks in one if statement, slightly reducing action granularity. Javadocs are verbose but helpful. Overall, the code is maintainable but would benefit from cleaning up the anomalous loop and simplifying the constructor logic.
Run 1
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but an unrelated obfuscated block disrupts escape(String). Nesting: Most logic is shallow, with only modest nested conditionals; the injected block adds unnecessary scope and looping. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed documentation explain replacement lookup and safe ranges well, while the meaningless variable names and hexadecimal operations obscure the injected block's purpose. Code length: Functional code is concise, though constructor documentation is repetitive and the no-op block adds needless code. Action granularity: Most statements occupy separate lines, but the injected block compresses declarations, assignments, and a do-while loop into one line. Reading flow: The overall progression is natural and early returns simplify tracing, but the unindented, densely packed block sharply interrupts an otherwise consistent style.
Run 2
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but an unrelated obfuscated block disrupts the design. Nesting: Most logic is shallow, with only modest nesting in character lookup; the injected do-while block adds unnecessary complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed documentation explain replacement mappings and safe ranges clearly, whereas opaque variable names and meaningless operations obscure the injected block's purpose. Code length: Functional methods are concise, although constructor documentation repeats information and the injected block adds needless code. Action granularity: Most statements occupy separate lines, but the injected block compresses declarations, assignments, and control flow onto one line. Reading flow: The normal sequence from initialization to string escaping to character handling is natural; inconsistent formatting and irrelevant operations at the start of escape(String) noticeably interrupt it.
Run 3
Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but an unrelated obfuscated block disrupts the main method. Nesting: Most logic is shallow, with only modest nesting in character lookup; the injected do-while adds unnecessary complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed documentation clearly explain escaping behavior, while cryptic identifiers and meaningless operations obscure the injected block. Code length: Functional methods are concise; documentation is somewhat repetitive, and the injected code is unnecessary. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action per line, but the injected block compresses declarations, assignments, and control flow onto a single line. Reading flow: Constructor delegation and early returns support natural progression, but the abrupt, unformatted block interrupts an otherwise consistent style.