From e0dac845cade30da68888c907ec89417e4fa56b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: itay mendelawy <itay.mendelawy@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:38:52 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] fix odd readme phrasing

---
 README.md | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 54f102c..c6007f4 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -28,7 +28,12 @@ Unfortunately none of the researchers suggests a single-metric similar to how Cy
 Σ(depth²) / lineCount
 ```
 
-Deeper nesting contributes exponentially more to the score. Default thresholds:
+I chose depth squared weighting because:
+- Mirrors cognitive complexity principles (nested code is harder to understand)
+- Normalized by line count for cross-file comparison
+- Shallow-but-wide code scores low; deep code scores high
+
+Default thresholds:
 
 | Level    | Score     |
 |----------|-----------|
@@ -36,11 +41,6 @@ Deeper nesting contributes exponentially more to the score. Default thresholds:
 | `medium` | 4 - 10    |
 | `high`   | ≥ 10      |
 
-We chose depth squared weighting because:
-- Mirrors cognitive complexity principles (nested code is harder to understand)
-- Normalized by line count for cross-file comparison
-- Shallow-but-wide code scores low; deep code scores high
-
 `verbose: true` returns all research-backed metrics for you to experiment and explore:
 
 | Metric | Description |

From 75080188b8559a58f4101427679abbf23bd30af8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: itay mendelawy <itay.mendelawy@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:40:19 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] formatting

---
 README.md    | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
 src/index.ts |  1 -
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index c6007f4..60a65ac 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ import { analyzeComplexity, analyzeDiffComplexity } from 'indent-complexity';
 
 // Pass any code snippet, function of complete file to get complexity assessment:
 const codeComplexity = analyzeComplexity(codeSnippet);
-console.log(codeComplexity.score)
+console.log(codeComplexity.score);
 
 // Also supports `git diff` output to evaluate complexity for added lines (by default):
 const diffComplexity = analyzeDiffComplexity(gitDiff);
-console.log(diffComplexity.score)
+console.log(diffComplexity.score);
 ```
 
 ## The Score
@@ -29,27 +29,28 @@ Unfortunately none of the researchers suggests a single-metric similar to how Cy
 ```
 
 I chose depth squared weighting because:
+
 - Mirrors cognitive complexity principles (nested code is harder to understand)
 - Normalized by line count for cross-file comparison
 - Shallow-but-wide code scores low; deep code scores high
 
 Default thresholds:
 
-| Level    | Score     |
-|----------|-----------|
-| `low`    | < 4       |
-| `medium` | 4 - 10    |
-| `high`   | ≥ 10      |
+| Level    | Score  |
+| -------- | ------ |
+| `low`    | < 4    |
+| `medium` | 4 - 10 |
+| `high`   | ≥ 10   |
 
 `verbose: true` returns all research-backed metrics for you to experiment and explore:
 
-| Metric | Description |
-|--------|-------------|
-| `variance` | Correlates with McCabe cyclomatic complexity |
-| `max` | Deepest nesting level |
-| `mean` | Average depth per line |
-| `lineCount` | Lines analyzed (excluding comments/blanks) |
-| `depthHistogram` | Distribution of depths |
+| Metric           | Description                                  |
+| ---------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
+| `variance`       | Correlates with McCabe cyclomatic complexity |
+| `max`            | Deepest nesting level                        |
+| `mean`           | Average depth per line                       |
+| `lineCount`      | Lines analyzed (excluding comments/blanks)   |
+| `depthHistogram` | Distribution of depths                       |
 
 ## License
 
diff --git a/src/index.ts b/src/index.ts
index 812042f..7baa06c 100644
--- a/src/index.ts
+++ b/src/index.ts
@@ -23,4 +23,3 @@ export type {
   AnalyzeOptions,
   DiffOptions,
 } from './types.js';
-