Please go ahead. But note that not everybody will use it in the same way. I'd use it from my development folder, which holds sources and builds. I use cpan (not cpanm) but others may use different ways/tools/means.

My script now hold - but does not report - also the information of the sub-analysis, which opens up to things like average LOC per sub/method and average lines-of-comment per sub/method. Problem in that is that this analysis does not include the docs that surround them or docs of the subs embedded in the main doc, possibly after the __END__, so any ratings from this module will be subjective.

Personally I am not a big fan of blank lines, but does that have any impact on the quality of the code? Neither do I use a lot of comments, but I think my subs/methods are well documented in the main docs. Is that of influence on your ratings? Should it?

In my tests I found one file with non-standard ratings:

 subs   lines     LOC    doc  blank  File
----- ------- ------- ------ ------  ---------------------------------
+-----
  260     307     260      2      7  ... (hidden)
[download]

That is 1.15 lines of code per sub/method :)

The "doc" says 2 lines, but all I see is one single line of comment that tells me the file is generated.