H-6402: Migrate to unified preflight + housekeeping workflows

[TimDiekmann]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Aligns hashintel/hash with the rest of the org by migrating CI workflows to the centralized reusable workflows in hashintel/.github. After this lands, all hashintel repos share a single source of truth for preflight checks and Renovate.

🔗 Related links

• H-6402 (internal)

🔍 What does this change?

• preflight.yml: bump reusable workflow refs from 52c4a1f → a0df113 and rename to the new preflight-* filenames. The labeler job is intentionally kept inline since it is hash-specific (uses .github/labeler.yml) and has no reusable equivalent yet.
• renovate.yml → housekeeping.yml: replace the bespoke 127-line Renovate workflow with the centralized reusable housekeeping-dependencies.yml. Auth (Vault → GitHub App token) is functionally equivalent. Schedule kept at 0/30 * * * * (every 30 min) to preserve hash's existing cadence.

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

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

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

• are internal and do not require a docs change

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

• do not affect the execution graph

🛡 What tests cover this?

The new housekeeping.yml includes a validate job that runs on PRs touching the workflow itself or .github/renovate.json — it validates the Renovate JSON config (jq empty) and lints the workflow with actionlint.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 28, 2026 0:20am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 28, 2026 0:20am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 28, 2026 0:20am

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
CI automation is reworked to rely on new reusable workflows and removes the bespoke Renovate implementation, which could impact dependency update cadence/permissions or preflight checks if the centralized workflows differ.

Overview
Migrates repository CI to org-standard reusable workflows: preflight.yml switches stale-approval, dependency, and todo-comment jobs to the new preflight-* workflow refs (keeping the inline labeler job).

Replaces the custom renovate.yml workflow with a new housekeeping.yml that runs the centralized housekeeping-dependencies workflow on the same 30-minute schedule and adds a PR-only validate job to jq-check renovate.json and actionlint the workflow.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 833cda2. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Migrates this repo to the org-standard unified preflight and housekeeping GitHub Actions workflows.

Changes:

• Added .github/workflows/housekeeping.yml to run dependency housekeeping via the centralized reusable workflow and to validate changes to the workflow/Renovate config on PRs.
• Updated .github/workflows/preflight.yml to use the new preflight-* reusable workflow names and bumped the referenced revision to a0df113.
• Removed the bespoke .github/workflows/renovate.yml implementation in favor of the shared housekeeping workflow.

Technical Notes: Housekeeping keeps the existing 30-minute cron cadence and retains an inline PR-only validation job (jq + actionlint) while delegating dependency updates to hashintel/.github.

_{🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎}

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 2 suggestions posted.

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 2 potential issues.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 833cda2. Configure here.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.49%. Comparing base (3d9d985) to head (833cda2).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8663   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.49%   62.49%           
=======================================
  Files        1318     1318           
  Lines      134235   134235           
  Branches     5521     5521           
=======================================
+ Hits        83894    83895    +1     
+ Misses      49426    49425    -1     
  Partials      915      915           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.40% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.24% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.87% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.21% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
rust.harpc-tower	67.03% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-wire-protocol	92.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec	72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	2.52% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	26.38% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	37.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	83.45% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	87.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	29.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	82.29% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	69.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.06% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	92.64% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.05% <ø> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing t/h-6402-add-preflight-workflow (833cda2) with main (3d9d985)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (13f6d3b) during the generation of this report, so 3d9d985 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[github-actions]

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$25.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 189 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.460 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 127 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$42.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 270 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.977 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 105 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.823 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$23.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.474 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 209 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.604 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.826 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 107 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.531 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.722 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.638 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.189 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.819 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.443 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.074 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.605 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.727 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.534 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.548 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.052 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.783 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.925 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.628 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.010 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.138 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.315 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.863 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.828 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.065 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.036 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$54.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 343 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.564 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$46.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 244 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.673 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$51.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 242 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.175 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$44.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 230 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.569 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$62.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.855 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$61.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 243 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.461 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$56.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.367 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 532 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$46.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 193 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.502 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$269 \mathrm{ms} \pm 744 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.242 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.020 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$19.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.999 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 114 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.012 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.640 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 125 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.332 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 114 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.662 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.927 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 172 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.823 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$35.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$34.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.835 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$33.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 231 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.862 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 274 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.233 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$33.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 270 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.448 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$34.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 263 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.221 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$34.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 277 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.965 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$35.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 257 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.450 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$35.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 280 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 40.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.102 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$92.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 568 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$145 \mathrm{ms} \pm 620 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.599 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$98.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 481 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.163 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 476 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.124 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$117 \mathrm{ms} \pm 631 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$125 \mathrm{ms} \pm 506 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.335 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 457 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$133 \mathrm{ms} \pm 592 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.914 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$112 \mathrm{ms} \pm 467 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 519 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 480 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.587 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 465 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.846 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$188 \mathrm{ms} \pm 579 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.478 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$165 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.37 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-18.518 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$40.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 235 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-63.091 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$564 \mathrm{ms} \pm 788 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.489 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph