SRE-1079: Repoint shared workflows and Renovate preset to hashintel/actions

[claude]

Requested by Tim Diekmann · Slack thread

Before: the repository's reusable workflows (preflight, housekeeping) and composite actions (encrypt-secret, decrypt-secret, github-app-token) are pinned to hashintel/.github@1598b7c8ee5d756327c1eaea00b6c213f0e8889b, and .github/renovate.json extends github>hashintel/.github:renovate-config.

After: all of them come from hashintel/actions, the repository that now holds the shared workflows, actions and Renovate preset. The workflows and actions run the same code as before.

How

• Every hashintel/.github/.github/{workflows,actions}/<x>@1598b7c… # main ref becomes hashintel/actions/.github/{workflows,actions}/<x>@66c812140c0f8f4a215c5f54dce5b40b476337d8 # main (11 refs across 7 files).
• Each referenced workflow and action at hashintel/actions@66c8121 is byte-identical to its copy at hashintel/.github@1598b7c, so workflow_call inputs and secrets are unchanged.
• The Renovate preset switches to github>hashintel/actions:renovate-config. On the default branches, the two presets differ only in the matchPackageNames entry that groups the org's own workflow refs (hashintel/.github becomes hashintel/actions), which matches the new refs.
• The housekeeping cron is already 0 3 * * *, so the schedule is unchanged here.
• No docs in this repository name hashintel/.github as the source of these workflows or the preset.
• hashintel/internal-infra#374 (internal) already runs this way, and the staging Vault ci-renovate role already accepts the hashintel/actions housekeeping workflow path.

🔗 Related links

• SRE-1079 (internal)
• hashintel/internal-infra#374 (internal)

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

• does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

• are internal and do not require a docs change

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

• do not affect the execution graph

🛡 What tests cover this?

• The Housekeeping workflow runs on this PR because it changes .github/workflows/housekeeping.yml and .github/renovate.json.
• Preflight runs the repointed preflight workflows on this PR.
• Locally: actionlint v1.7.12 passes on housekeeping.yml, preflight.yml and preflight-target.yml, and renovate-config-validator (renovate 44.34.3) validates .github/renovate.json.

⚠️ Known issues

• actionlint reports three errors in .github/workflows/release.yml (lines 50, 81 and 88, uses: $/.github/actions/...). They are identical on main and are not touched here.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_012vhP8cbLCbnWdQP7LLFB5A

---

Generated by Claude Code

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hash	Ready	Preview	Sep 26, 2026 3:49pm UTC
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Sep 26, 2026 3:49pm UTC
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Sep 26, 2026 3:49pm UTC
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Sep 26, 2026 3:49pm UTC

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 65.90%. Comparing base (48e1582) to head (579d3f0).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9844      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.56%   65.90%   +0.34%     
==========================================
  Files        1896     1905       +9     
  Lines      201506   210007    +8501     
  Branches     8028     8218     +190     
==========================================
+ Hits       132115   138405    +6290     
- Misses      67841    70053    +2212     
+ Partials     1550     1549       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
antsi	1.96% <ø> (?)
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	15.35% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	38.15% <ø> (ø)
error-stack	90.55% <ø> (?)
harpc-codec	84.61% <ø> (?)
harpc-net	96.25% <ø> (?)
harpc-tower	67.11% <ø> (?)
harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (?)
harpc-wire-protocol	93.85% <ø> (?)
hash-codec	72.09% <ø> (?)
hash-config	83.57% <ø> (?)
hash-graph	14.11% <ø> (+1.78%)	⬆️
hash-graph-api	33.18% <ø> (+0.98%)	⬆️
hash-graph-atlas	80.01% <ø> (-0.18%)	⬇️
hash-graph-authentication	97.34% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-authorization	67.68% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-embeddings	91.54% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-postgres-store	31.94% <ø> (-0.15%)	⬇️
hash-graph-store	51.71% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-temporal-versioning	50.53% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-validation	85.37% <ø> (?)
hash-middleware	88.93% <ø> (?)
hashql-ast	90.01% <ø> (+0.39%)	⬆️
hashql-compiletest	28.71% <ø> (+0.30%)	⬆️
hashql-core	81.47% <ø> (?)
hashql-diagnostics	72.85% <ø> (?)
hashql-eval	79.77% <ø> (-0.30%)	⬇️
hashql-hir	89.10% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
hashql-mir	87.74% <ø> (+0.12%)	⬆️
hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.77% <ø> (+0.73%)	⬆️
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	3.27% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	12.22% <ø> (ø)
problematic	89.25% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Mechanical ref-only CI changes with no application or publishable library impact; release and Renovate still use the same secrets and workflow inputs.

Overview
This PR migrates CI plumbing from the deprecated hashintel/.github repo to hashintel/actions, where shared workflows, composite actions, and the Renovate preset now live.

Renovate extends github>hashintel/actions:renovate-config instead of the old .github preset. Reusable workflows (preflight, housekeeping dependencies) and composite actions (encrypt-secret, decrypt-secret, github-app-token) are repinned to hashintel/actions@66c8121… across housekeeping.yml, preflight.yml, preflight-target.yml, release.yml, and the local sccache actions—behavior is intended to match the previous pins at hashintel/.github@1598b7c….

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 579d3f0. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

⚠️ 6 benchmarks measured no execution time

Nothing ran under measurement, usually because the compiler removed the code under test. These results are not comparable, so they count as unchanged.

Preventing compiler optimizations

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚠️	as_constant	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	constant_equal	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	constant_not_equal	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	access	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	runtime_equal	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A
⚠️	runtime_not_equal	< 1 ns	< 1 ns	N/A

---

_{Comparing claude/sre-1079-repoint-shared-workflows-to-hashintel-actions (579d3f0) with main (1c14c9e)}

[claude]

Integration (hash-graph-postgres-store) failed in the Rust test body, not in the sccache setup this PR touches. The job got through Install tools (which includes install-sccache and mint-sccache-credentials). sccache then reported 98% - 934 hits, 21 misses, 0 errors, and the step that failed was Run tests:

command (/home/runner/work/hash/hash/libs/@local/graph/postgres-store) cargo hack nextest run --feature-powerset --tests exited (1)

This PR changes only workflow uses: refs and the Renovate preset, not any Rust code. The same job passed in the last ~30 runs, including the merge-queue run for #9843 on the same base (1c14c9e). I re-ran the failed job once.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[github-actions]

Benchmark results

hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$28.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 360 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.912 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.905 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$13.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.644 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$45.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 490 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.499 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.142 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$25.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 242 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.609 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.091 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.887 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$14.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 175 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.721 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.795 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.036 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.307 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.021 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.174 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.230 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.630 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.052 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.805 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.596 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.271 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.523 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.503 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.145 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.312 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.266 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.295 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.951 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.330 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.816 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$32.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.476 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$72.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 617 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.337 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$36.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.805 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$40.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 289 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.937 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$43.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 369 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.204 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.847 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$434 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.51 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.155 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$91.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 894 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.814 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$79.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 715 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.223 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$314 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.34 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.518 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.455 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.042 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.774 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.582 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 94.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 89.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.221 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/block/v/1	$$12.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 104 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 89.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.08 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$12.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$12.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 119 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$59.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 659 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.32 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$65.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 716 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$75.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 625 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$84.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 751 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$92.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 923 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$47.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 396 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.736 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$74.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 648 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.834 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$54.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 426 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$61.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 647 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.081 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 569 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.546 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 563 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.275 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 868 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.003 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$131 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.00 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.096 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$24.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 229 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$536 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.69 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.850 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph