FE-1495: Prevent Brunch TypeScript contracts from drifting

[lunelson]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Brunch's TypeScript contracts could drift because its packages lacked a scoped, type-aware lint policy, and several runtime schemas, SDK payloads, and test protocols were restated as independent handwritten types. Stacked on the strategy and documentation work, this pull request makes those boundaries mechanically strict inside Brunch without imposing the policy on unrelated HASH workspaces.

🔗 Related links

• FE-1495: Prevent Brunch TypeScript contracts from drifting (internal)
• Parent in this stack: FE-1494 / #9311
• Shared Oxlint presets: .config/oxlint/brunch/

🚫 Blocked by

• FE-1494: Keep Brunch strategy and control records coherent

🔍 What does this change?

Brunch packages and apps/brunch-agent now run Oxlint with multi-file analysis, type-aware rules, and compiler diagnostics, using shared presets under .config/oxlint/brunch/. Persisted records, AI SDK wire values, plugin proposals, and test protocols derive their TypeScript types from the schemas or library contracts that already own those values. Package Oxlint configs encode the existing harness / binding / plugin / transport direction rules.

🏗️ Agent notes

Stacked as ln/fe-1437-hash-monorepo-import → ln/fe-1494-strategic-controls → this branch → ln/fe-1480-resolve-decision.

This branch was previously ln/fe-xxxx-tooling-expanse. After restack it contains only the two commits that are unique to FE-1495; the ten documentation/strategy commits live on #9311.

Commits

• 77bd7cb1ca Add comprehensive Oxlint policy for Brunch
• b052dda955 Unify Brunch TypeScript contract ownership

Lint policy

• Presets: .config/oxlint/brunch/base.json and react.json.
• Per-package .oxlintrc.json files extend those presets and enable typeAware plus typeCheck.
• lint:eslint / fix:eslint add --type-check so compiler diagnostics fail the task.
• no-restricted-imports encodes: no @local/*; no Petrinaut from Brunch libraries or the Brunch server; harness independent of bindings/plugins/transports/Flue; plugins storage-blind and substrate-independent; transports independent of bindings.

Contract ownership

Types are inferred from Valibot schemas or imported from the owning library rather than restated:

• capture-store envelopes, issues, events, and JSON-compatible values
• session-log entries
• sweep-protocol statuses
• plugin descriptors
• reply-protocol / AI SDK UI-message-stream chunks
• ask input/output parsers
• baseline-runner and architecture-test fixtures

apps/brunch-agent depends on ai so application tests can use the SDK's published types instead of local copies. Intentional standalone types remain at historical archive and pruned-CI boundaries.

Verification already run on the branch

Brunch formatting, Oxlint, tsgo, Vite build, and Vitest across the four libraries and the application.

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

Brunch packages remain private. The ai dependency is on the private application workspace.

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

• are internal and do not require a docs change

AGENTS.md records the Oxlint invocation for agents working in the Brunch context. No user-facing Petrinaut docs change.

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

• do not affect the execution graph

Existing lint:eslint tasks gain flags and config files; no new workspace or turbo.json change.

⚠️ Known issues

Standalone types at historical archive documents and pruned-CI helpers are intentional and out of policy scope.

🐾 Next steps

• FE-1480 / #9313 — projection/realization authority boundary and design-convergence order

🛡 What tests cover this?

• Package and application lint:eslint (Oxlint with type-aware rules and compiler diagnostics)
• Package and application lint:tsc
• Existing Vitest suites, updated where handwritten DTO copies were replaced
• Architecture tests still pass under the stricter lint

❓ How to test this?

1. Run:

   turbo run lint:eslint lint:tsc test:unit build \
     --filter '@hashintel/brunch-agent' \
     --filter '@hashintel/brunch-agent-binding-flue' \
     --filter '@hashintel/brunch-agent-transport-aisdk' \
     --filter '@hashintel/brunch-agent-plugin-gherkin' \
     --filter '@apps/brunch-agent'

2. Confirm a forbidden import (for example @hashintel/petrinaut from packages/core) fails Oxlint with the configured message.

📹 Demo

Not applicable — lint policy and type-ownership changes only.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 10:51am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 10:51am
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 10:51am

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Aug 26, 2026 10:51am

[lunelson]

• FE-1507: Move the repertoire into core behind a guarded prompts subpath #9349 : 2 dependent PRs (#9355 , #9381 )
• FE-1431: Build the plugin authoring surface (cycle two) #9348
• FE-1505: Time each interviewer turn by purpose #9347
• FE-1506: Show captures and completion while a panel elicitation runs #9346
• FE-1504: Run the process-model elicitor from the Petrinaut panel on one owned document #9345
• FE-1431: Build the plugin authoring surface #9337
• FE-1406: Audit the harness-teaching lineage and propose the fixed-key plugin contract (ADR-0007) #9327
• FE-1497: Build the controller read path and the SDCPN plugin package #9325
• FE-1404: Run condition 3 as the walking skeleton #9322
• FE-1403: Assemble and test the CPS interview guidance #9321
• FE-1402: Define and rehearse the elicitation completion contract #9320
• FE-1407: Catalogue elicitor failures that published measures miss #9319
• FE-1480: Project and realize a CPS model as a Petrinaut SDCPN #9313
• FE-1495: Prevent Brunch TypeScript contracts from drifting #9312 👈 (View in Graphite)
• FE-1494: Keep Brunch strategy and control records coherent #9311
• FE-1437: Move brunch-agent into hashintel/hash with its history #9274
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.22%. Comparing base (7010fca) to head (ddecada).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9312   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.22%   60.22%           
=======================================
  Files        1430     1430           
  Lines      140558   140558           
  Branches     6609     6609           
=======================================
  Hits        84658    84658           
  Misses      54823    54823           
  Partials     1077     1077           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-api	14.66% <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.

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Tooling and type-refactor only; no intended runtime behavior change beyond stricter lint and schema-aligned parsing at existing boundaries.

Overview
Brunch workspaces now run Oxlint with shared presets under .config/oxlint/brunch/ (base + React), type-aware rules, and --type-check so compiler diagnostics fail lint:eslint. Per-package .oxlintrc.json files extend those presets and enforce import boundaries (no Petrinaut, no @local/*, harness/plugin/transport/binding direction).

TypeScript contracts are tied to their owning schemas or libraries instead of duplicate handwritten types: capture-store and session-log envelopes derive from Valibot (JsonValueSchema, ReadonlyDeep), sweep statuses and reply-protocol kinds are exported from core, and application/transport tests use the ai package’s UIMessageChunk types plus small shared result modules.

Supporting fixes include prune CI copying .config/oxlint/brunch, replacing console.log with process.stdout.write for opt-in diagnostics, and targeted oxlint-disable comments where runtime guards or Vitest matchers are intentional.

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

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing ln/fe-1495-typescript-contracts (ddecada) with main (f897a69)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (7010fca) during the generation of this report, so f897a69 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	$$29.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.199 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$14.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$45.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 378 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 209 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$26.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 338 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$29.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 244 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.154 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}13.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.338 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 46.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.245 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.490 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 40.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.817 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.433 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.337 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.148 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.757 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$44.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 348 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.292 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$34.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 254 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$37.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.802 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$45.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 270 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$51.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 351 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$42.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$91.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 689 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.693 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$36.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 334 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$257 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.25 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.044 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.828 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.084 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.697 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.295 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.720 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.898 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.253 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.995 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.339 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.533 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.438 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.658 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.975 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.340 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.522 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.630 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.210 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.179 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.419 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$59.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 538 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 762 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$68.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 564 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.08 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$77.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 526 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$86.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 546 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.840 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$91.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 489 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$43.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 284 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$72.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 604 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$49.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 366 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.694 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$59.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 429 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.655 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$61.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 517 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.059 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$61.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 411 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 661 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.932 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 727 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.589 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 154 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$557 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.79 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}5.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph