Source code
Official dataset source · Scalabrio168
Sample
Scalabrio168
Human rating uses the original dataset scale.
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale | Dataset rank (0–100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.076 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 85.4Δ 9.3 |
| Scalabrino | 0.841 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 88.4Δ 6.3 |
| Dorn | 0.811 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 92.0Δ 2.8 |
| Mi | 0.664 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 88.4Δ 6.3 |
| LLOC | 6 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable | 86.9Δ 7.8 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 90.2Δ 4.5 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 18.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 93.0Δ 1.8 |
| BTTF | 0.56 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 61.3Δ 33.4 |
| Human | 4.56 | 1–5; original rating | 94.7 |
Views
Select the downloaded ZIP or its extracted folder. Files stay in your browser.
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. | 267.925 | −8.842 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.888 | −7.332 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 12 | +4.8 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -2.503 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.503) = 0.076.
| Score | 0.841 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 40.833 | +1.936 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 12 | +0.611 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.158 | −0.592 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 11 | −0.357 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 10.548 | −0.262 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 10 | +0.191 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 41 | −0.143 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.454 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.454) = 0.811.
| Score | 0.664 |
|---|
| Score | 6 |
|---|
Run 1
The code demonstrates excellent readability. It has a clear structure with logical organization, minimal nesting, and explicit intent. The action granularity is ideal - one action per line - making it easy to follow the transaction flow. Variable naming is descriptive, and comments provide useful context. The method is concise without being terse. Minor deductions: could use a blank line before the transaction block for visual separation, and the Country.of() factory method could be explained, but overall this is highly readable test code.
Run 2
The code is concise and logically organized. It uses a clear test method name, initData, indicating its purpose. The EntityManager operations are straightforward, with each action on its own line. Comments help describe the revision, improving clarity. Minor issues: no blank lines between logical sections, and the transaction could be more explicit in flow, but the code remains easy to follow.
Run 3
The code is generally clear and well-structured. It uses appropriate indentation and separates logical steps (begin transaction, create entity, persist, commit) with distinct lines, improving readability. The method name 'initData' clearly indicates its purpose, and the comment 'Revision 1' provides context. There is minimal nesting and action granularity is good—one operation per line. However, there are minor issues: the annotation indentation is inconsistent, a blank line before the closing brace is unnecessary, and variable 'country' appears to be a field not declared in the method, which may confuse readers about its scope. Overall, it is concise and easy to follow, but small formatting and context improvements could make it even clearer.
Run 1
Code Structure: The test is logically organized into setup, transaction start, entity creation and persistence, and commit. Nesting: There is no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: The operations clearly initialize and persist a country, though initData is generic and the Revision 1 comment lacks context. Code length: The method is concise, with only a minor unnecessary blank line. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action. Reading flow: The sequential transaction lifecycle is natural and easy to follow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Logically organized into entity-manager acquisition, transaction start, entity creation, persistence, and commit. Nesting: Flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: The persistence operation is clear, though initData is generic and the Revision 1 comment lacks context. Code length: Concise, with only a minor unnecessary blank line before the closing brace. Action granularity: Each statement performs one primary action. Reading flow: Follows the natural transaction lifecycle, making it easy to read sequentially.
Run 3
Code Structure: logically organized into setup, transaction start, entity creation, persistence, and commit. Nesting: flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: the method clearly initializes and persists a country, although initData is generic and the Revision 1 comment provides limited context. Code length: concise, with no unnecessary logic; the trailing blank line is minor clutter. Action granularity: each statement performs one distinct action. Reading flow: the transaction lifecycle reads naturally from beginning to commit, with only minor spacing and indentation inconsistencies.