Modify rule S6745: Add first rule description

rules/S6745/java/metadata.json

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 {
-  "title": "FIXME",
+  "title": "Detection of the Local Butterfly object dependencies anti-pattern",
   "type": "CODE_SMELL",
   "status": "ready",
   "remediation": {
@@ -8,16 +8,16 @@
   },
   "tags": [
   ],
-  "defaultSeverity": "Major",
+  "defaultSeverity": "Info",
   "ruleSpecification": "RSPEC-6745",
   "sqKey": "S6745",
   "scope": "All",
   "defaultQualityProfiles": ["Sonar way"],
-  "quickfix": "unknown",
+  "quickfix": "infeasible",
   "code": {
     "impacts": {
-      "MAINTAINABILITY": "HIGH",
-      "RELIABILITY": "MEDIUM",
+      "MAINTAINABILITY": "LOW",
+      "RELIABILITY": "LOW",
       "SECURITY": "LOW"
     },
     "attribute": "CONVENTIONAL"

rules/S6745/java/rule.adoc

@@ -1,44 +1,25 @@
-FIXME: add a description
+Local Butterfly is a structural anti-pattern for a component with many immediate dependents.
+The scope of dependents is limited to immediate dependents that directly access, use, reference, or contain the Local Butterfly.
 
-// If you want to factorize the description uncomment the following line and create the file.
-//include::../description.adoc[]
+These issues arise from the tight coupling between the component and its dependents, which can lead to a lack of flexibility, maintainability, and scalability in the system.
 
 == Why is this an issue?
 
-FIXME: remove the unused optional headers (that are commented out)
+Any changes or modifications to the component with a large number of immediate dependents may require updates in multiple places.
+This can make it challenging to introduce new features or make changes without impacting the entire system.
+The lack of flexibility can hinder adapting to evolving requirements or business needs.
 
-//=== What is the potential impact?
+The tight coupling between the component and its immediate dependents can make the codebase more complex and harder to understand.
+This can lead to difficulties in maintaining and debugging the system.
+When a change is required, it may be challenging to identify all the affected areas, increasing the risk of introducing bugs or unintended side effects.
 
-== How to fix it
-//== How to fix it in FRAMEWORK NAME
-
-=== Code examples
-
-==== Noncompliant code example
-
-[source,text,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
-----
-FIXME
-----
+As the number of immediate dependents increases, the component's scalability can be compromised.
 
-==== Compliant solution
+Only basic Interfaces or utility classes should be allowed to become Local Butterflies.
 
-[source,text,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
-----
-FIXME
-----
-
-//=== How does this work?
-
-//=== Pitfalls
-
-//=== Going the extra mile
+== How to fix it
 
+To mitigate these issues, it is recommended to consider alternative design patterns that promote loose coupling and separation of concerns.
+By decoupling the component from its immediate dependents, such as using interfaces or abstractions, it becomes easier to modify, maintain, and test the system.
+This promotes better flexibility, maintainability, and scalability in the long run.
 
-//== Resources
-//=== Documentation
-//=== Articles & blog posts
-//=== Conference presentations
-//=== Standards
-//=== External coding guidelines
-//=== Benchmarks