Sample
int-19ae034c3776-I08
Select one of ten high-readability unrelated code templates per class
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.831 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.139 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.085 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 54 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 8.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.509 | 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. | 3300.74 | −108.924 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 169 | +67.6 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.586 | −6.879 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -39.334 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-39.334) = 0.
| Score | 0.831 |
|---|
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. | 170 | −4.983 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 114 | +3.206 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 114 | −2.195 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 168.802 | +1.95 |
| 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. | 119.988 | −1.417 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 115.794 | +1.064 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.047 | +0.482 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.823 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.823) = 0.139.
| Score | 0.085 |
|---|
| Score | 54 |
|---|
Run 1
The code has good Javadoc and mostly clear method names, but readability is severely undermined by a nonsensical, unrelated block of code inserted in the middle of the `add` method (a loop calculating a sum of 1..5). This violates logical structure, clarity of intent, and reading flow, making the code ambiguous and confusing. Executor-related logic in the listener adds nesting but is acceptable, though it adds complexity. Action granularity is mostly one action per line, but the odd insertion dominates the reader’s perception. Overall, while the original structure appears modular, the evident copy-paste error significantly reduces readability, making it hard to trust or follow the code.
Run 2
The code has significant readability problems. The most glaring issue is a random, unrelated block of code inserted inside the add(Future) method that computes a running total from 1 to 5—this has nothing to do with the method's purpose and severely disrupts reading flow. The overall class structure is logical with clear field declarations and method organization, but the anonymous inner class listener adds moderate nesting and splits related logic across operationComplete and operationComplete0. Documentation is thorough, and method names generally convey intent, but the stray code block, the somewhat dispersed validation logic, and multiple deprecated overloads add clutter. Action granularity is mostly reasonable, with one operation per line, but the accidental code insertion is a critical flaw that makes the implementation ambiguous and misleading.
Run 3
The code has good documentation and mostly clear intent, but contains a significant structural flaw: an unexplained, unrelated code block (a loop calculating a running total) inside the add(Future) method. This breaks logical organization, reading flow, and action granularity. Nesting is moderate: the inner listener uses one level of nesting and an anonymous Runnable adds another, though it's manageable. Method names are clear and actions are mostly one per line. However, the stray code block is confusing and seems accidental or out of place, severely harming readability. The class overall is not overly long, and the Javadocs are helpful, but that anomalous block prevents a higher score.
Run 1
Code Structure: Responsibilities are sensibly separated into adding futures, finishing aggregation, and validation helpers, but the unrelated summation block in add(Future) disrupts organization. Nesting: Most methods are shallow; nested anonymous listener and Runnable classes add moderate complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive documentation explain aggregation and thread constraints, while the unused runningTotal calculation introduces unexplained behavior. Code length: Core methods are concise, but repetitive documentation, deprecated overloads, and the unnecessary loop increase reading overhead. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making state changes easy to follow. Reading flow: The lifecycle is mostly natural, with small helpers supporting comprehension; inconsistent indentation in the inserted block and asynchronous callback indirection interrupt that flow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into short methods, but the unrelated summation block in add(Future) disrupts organization. Nesting: Mostly shallow; the anonymous listener and Runnable introduce moderate nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain aggregation and thread constraints, although the unused runningTotal calculation is confusing. Code length: Core logic is concise, but repetitive documentation, deprecated overloads, and the extraneous loop add bulk. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making state updates and checks easy to follow. Reading flow: The add/finish lifecycle reads naturally, but inconsistent indentation in the inserted block and nested callback boilerplate interrupt the flow.
Run 3
Code Structure: Well-separated public operations and private validation helpers, but an unrelated summation block in add(Future) disrupts organization. Nesting: Mostly shallow; the anonymous listener and nested Runnable introduce moderate depth. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive documentation explain aggregation and threading requirements, while the unused runningTotal calculation creates confusion. Code length: Core methods are concise, but repetitive documentation, deprecated overloads, and the unnecessary loop add bulk. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making state updates and checks easy to follow. Reading flow: The add/finish lifecycle is natural and consistent, but inconsistent indentation in the inserted block and callback logic embedded among fields interrupt the flow.