Sample
int-3ca58e177f20-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 | 0.869 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.661 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.102 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 50 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 3.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 12 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.403 | 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. | 3041.069 | −100.355 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 162 | +64.8 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.542 | −6.813 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -33.498 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-33.498) = 0.
| Score | 0.869 |
|---|
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. | 163 | −4.735 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 107 | +2.964 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 161.744 | +1.851 |
| 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. | 119.982 | −1.417 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 115.656 | +1.062 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.048 | +0.475 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.668 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.668) = 0.661.
| Score | 0.102 |
|---|
| Score | 50 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly unreadable due to obfuscated method and parameter names (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i), which make the code's intent unclear despite helpful Javadoc comments. The nesting is moderately deep within the listener, but the real problem is the poor naming: method 'c' handles future completion, 'd' adds futures, etc. This violates clarity of intent and reading flow. The structure is otherwise logical, with private helper methods to reduce duplication and keep actions granular. However, the class-level listener references executor before its declaration, and the deprecated methods add noise. There are also inconsistent naming conventions and overly terse parameter names throughout. The code is concise but at the cost of understandability, making it difficult to follow without closely reading the comments or original source.
Run 2
This code is severely unreadable due to obfuscated naming (methods a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i and parameters a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i), which obscures intent entirely. The listener logic is nested two levels deep with an anonymous inner class and a Runnable. While the class-level structure is logical (fields, constructors, public API, private helpers), the actual method names provide no semantic meaning. Reading flow is disrupted because readers must constantly map meaningless identifiers to their purpose. Action granularity is mostly acceptable, but the one-letter names force mental backtracking. The documentation is clear, but it cannot compensate for the cryptic code. The logic itself is straightforward, but the naming violates core readability principles, making the code much harder to understand than necessary. This appears to be deliberately obfuscated or minified source, not production-quality readable code.
Run 3
The code is severely obfuscated due to minified method and parameter names (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i). While the Javadoc provides some clarity, the actual implementation is nearly impossible to read without reverse-engineering the single-letter identifiers. Code structure is disjointed: the listener is declared before the executor field it depends on, and methods are scattered (d/f public methods, private helpers g/h/i interleaved). Nesting is moderate but the anonymous inner class with three one-letter methods obscures intent. Action granularity is mostly one operation per line, but meaningless names destroy comprehension. Reading flow is unnatural—readers must constantly map letters to concepts. The deprecated overloads and type casts add noise. Although the class is logically small, the naming makes it effectively unreadable for maintenance or review.
Run 1
Code Structure: Fields, listener logic, constructors, public operations, and private checks are logically organized into small methods. Nesting: Most methods are shallow, although the listener's anonymous Runnable adds visual nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive state fields and extensive documentation explain aggregation, but single-letter method and parameter names obscure operations. Documentation references add, addAll, and finish rather than the actual names, further confusing navigation. Code length: Implementation methods are concise; lengthy, repetitive documentation and deprecated overloads increase reading overhead. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making state updates and validation easy to follow. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and straightforward conditionals help, but calls such as i(), g(), and h() require repeated lookups to understand the lifecycle.
Run 2
Code Structure: Fields, listener logic, public operations, and validation helpers are logically organized into focused methods. Nesting: Most methods are flat, although the listener's anonymous Runnable introduces moderate nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive state fields and extensive documentation explain the overall purpose, but single-letter method and parameter names obscure individual operations. Documentation references names such as add and finish that do not match the actual methods, further confusing navigation. Code length: Implementation methods are concise; documentation and deprecated overloads add substantial but mostly useful length. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making state changes easy to follow. Reading flow: Formatting and straightforward conditionals help, but calls such as i(), g(), and h() force readers to repeatedly inspect helper definitions.
Run 3
Code Structure: State, listener handling, constructors, and helper methods are logically organized and responsibilities are separated. Nesting: Most methods are flat, although the anonymous listener containing an anonymous Runnable adds localized depth. Clarity of intent: Descriptive state fields and extensive documentation explain the overall purpose, but single-letter method and parameter names obscure individual operations. Documentation references names such as add and finish that do not match the actual methods, further hindering comprehension. Code length: Implementation methods are concise; repeated documentation and deprecated overloads add some reading overhead. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making state updates and validation easy to distinguish. Reading flow: Formatting and short methods support scanning, but opaque helper calls such as i(), g(), and h() require frequent navigation to understand the execution sequence.