SRE-913: Update pinned housekeeping-dependencies.yml SHA by claude[bot] · Pull Request #9157 · hashintel/hash

claude · 2026-08-04T15:50:20Z

Requested by Ciaran Morinan · Slack thread

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Re-pins the shared Renovate housekeeping reusable workflow to the hardened revision.

Follow-up to today's incident, where a compromised action reached CI through Renovate. The previously pinned revision of hashintel/.github/.github/workflows/housekeeping-dependencies.yml installed Renovate with npm install --global and install scripts enabled, so a package published after the fact could enter the dependency tree at runtime.

The new ref installs from the lockfile committed in hashintel/.github using npm ci --ignore-scripts, which resolves nothing at runtime and never executes install scripts.

🔗 Related links

Incident thread (internal)
SRE-913 — rollout across all callers (internal)
SRE-901 — hardening of the workflow itself (internal)

🚫 Blocked by

Nothing — but do not merge without Ciaran's go-ahead.

🔍 What does this change?

.github/workflows/housekeeping.yml — the pinned SHA for hashintel/.github/.github/workflows/housekeeping-dependencies.yml moves from d76c8393 to 9957be5b132761d8b54dea2eb3166f417ebacaf9. One line, no other changes.
Callers were not all pinned to the same ref — this repo was on d76c8393, while most others were on b52c1578. That drift is why the compromised run installed an older Renovate. This PR is one of eight putting every caller back on a single ref.

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

⚠️ Known issues

Actions were disabled org-wide when this branch was first pushed, so the initial push ran nothing. They have since been re-enabled and CI has been re-triggered.

🐾 Next steps

The remaining seven callers are covered by sibling PRs under SRE-913.
hashintel/simulation is listed as a caller in SRE-901 but was not reachable from this tooling, so it has not been verified or updated.
Removing secrets: inherit from the callers is tracked separately in SRE-901 and is deliberately not in this PR.

🛡 What tests cover this?

None directly. The reusable workflow is exercised by the scheduled housekeeping run and by its own pull_request trigger in hashintel/.github.

❓ How to test this?

Confirm the workflow file resolves: hashintel/.github at 9957be5b132761d8b54dea2eb3166f417ebacaf9 contains .github/workflows/housekeeping-dependencies.yml.
Confirm that revision installs Renovate with npm ci --ignore-scripts --no-audit --no-fund and not npm install --global.
Optionally dispatch housekeeping.yml from this branch with dryRun: extract once Actions are stable.

📹 Demo

n/a — one-line SHA change.

Generated by Claude Code

Re-pin the hashintel/.github Renovate housekeeping reusable workflow to 9957be5b132761d8b54dea2eb3166f417ebacaf9, which installs Renovate from the committed lockfile with `npm ci --ignore-scripts` instead of `npm install --global`.

vercel · 2026-08-04T15:50:24Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 4, 2026 4:05pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Aug 4, 2026 4:05pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 4, 2026 4:05pm

codecov · 2026-08-04T15:54:31Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.57%. Comparing base (ac5ec9c) to head (20c7682).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9157   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.57%   59.57%           
=======================================
  Files        1413     1413           
  Lines      138053   138053           
  Branches     6510     6510           
=======================================
+ Hits        82240    82243    +3     
+ Misses      54771    54768    -3     
  Partials     1042     1042

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	`1.99% <ø> (ø)`
apps.hash-api	`12.56% <ø> (ø)`
blockprotocol.type-system	`40.84% <ø> (ø)`
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	`12.25% <ø> (ø)`
rust.antsi	`2.36% <ø> (ø)`
rust.error-stack	`90.81% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-codec	`84.70% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-net	`96.24% <ø> (+0.04%)`	⬆️
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	`7.36% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-authorization	`62.59% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	`91.88% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	`29.66% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-store	`42.16% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	`47.95% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-types	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-validation	`84.71% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-ast	`89.63% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-compiletest	`28.39% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-core	`78.98% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-diagnostics	`72.51% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-eval	`79.82% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-hir	`89.09% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-mir	`87.92% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	`94.04% <ø> (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.

codspeed-hq · 2026-08-04T15:58:17Z

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 15.38%

❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 96 untouched benchmarks

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
❌	`bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[64]`	140.8 ns	170 ns	-17.16%
❌	`bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[200]`	185.8 ns	215 ns	-13.57%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

_{Comparing claude/sre-913-bump-housekeeping-workflow-sha (20c7682) with main (ac5ec9c)¹}

No successful run was found on main (2b68e02) during the generation of this report, so ac5ec9c was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

cursor · 2026-08-04T16:17:14Z

PR Summary

Low Risk
Single-line SHA pin for an existing reusable workflow; reduces CI supply-chain risk rather than changing application or runtime behavior.

Overview
Re-pins the shared Renovate housekeeping reusable workflow in .github/workflows/housekeeping.yml from d76c8393 to 9957be5b132761d8b54dea2eb3166f417ebacaf9, aligning this repo with the hardened revision that installs Renovate via lockfile npm ci --ignore-scripts instead of runtime npm install --global.

No other workflow inputs or jobs change; this is part of rolling the same ref across all callers after a CI supply-chain incident.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 20c7682. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

Copilot

Pull request overview

Updates the pinned Renovate housekeeping workflow to its hardened revision.

Changes:

Re-pins the reusable dependency workflow to SHA 9957be5b....

github-actions · 2026-08-04T17:09:41Z

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	$$26.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 249 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$13.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 334 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.560 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$16.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 134 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$25.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 165 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.565 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 176 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.345 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.300 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.125 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.526 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.576 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.783 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.193 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.699 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.981 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.742 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.847 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.251 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.991 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$44.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 260 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 193 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.171 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$37.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 272 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$34.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 217 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$43.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$50.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.758 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$40.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 205 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.218 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$86.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 353 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.433 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 228 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$301 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.23 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.271 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.151 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 116 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.533 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.217 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$13.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 147 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}13.4 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$13.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 133 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}14.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$12.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$12.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}12.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 100 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$12.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 122 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$12.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 100.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.1 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$64.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 542 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 553 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.796 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$70.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 653 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.082 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$79.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 523 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.383 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$86.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 518 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.101 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$92.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 517 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.918 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$44.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 228 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.473 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$72.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 367 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.811 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$51.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 404 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$59.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 445 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.695 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 783 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.296 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 412 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 586 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.081 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 475 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.523 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$18.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 136 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.456 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$563 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.04 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}2.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

claude Bot assigned CiaranMn Aug 4, 2026

github-actions Bot added the area/infra Relates to version control, CI, CD or IaC (area) label Aug 4, 2026

vercel Bot temporarily deployed to Preview – hashdotdesign-tokens August 4, 2026 15:52 Inactive

vercel Bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut August 4, 2026 15:54 Inactive

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash August 4, 2026 16:05 View deployment

CiaranMn marked this pull request as ready for review August 4, 2026 16:17

Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings August 4, 2026 16:17

CiaranMn approved these changes Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of CiaranMn August 4, 2026 16:17 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Aug 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

claude Bot requested a review from CiaranMn August 4, 2026 16:24

CiaranMn added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 4, 2026

Merged via the queue into main with commit 5aa2a09 Aug 4, 2026
279 of 281 checks passed

CiaranMn deleted the claude/sre-913-bump-housekeeping-workflow-sha branch August 4, 2026 16:47

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

SRE-913: Update pinned housekeeping-dependencies.yml SHA - #9157

SRE-913: Update pinned housekeeping-dependencies.yml SHA#9157
CiaranMn merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/sre-913-bump-housekeeping-workflow-sha

claude Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

claude Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔗 Related links

🚫 Blocked by

🔍 What does this change?

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

⚠️ Known issues

🐾 Next steps

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

📹 Demo

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 15.38%

Performance Changes

Footnotes

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

vercel Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot commented Aug 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading