SRE-719: Use github-worker App token in release workflow

[TimDiekmann]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Replaces the hashdotai machine-user PAT (secrets.MACHINE_USER_TOKEN) in .github/workflows/release.yml with a short-lived installation token minted from the github-worker GitHub App. The PAT is long-lived, broadly scoped, never rotated, and consumes an org seat under a "human-looking" account; the App pattern is what hashintel/.github already uses for Renovate across the org, so this aligns release.yml with that pattern.

🔗 Related links

• SRE-719 (internal)
• Pattern source: hashintel/.github housekeeping-dependencies.yml

🔍 What does this change?

• Adds a hashicorp/vault-action step that reads github_worker_app_id / github_worker_app_private_key from automation/data/pipelines/hash/dev
• Adds an actions/create-github-app-token step that mints a short-lived installation token from those credentials
• Switches actions/checkout and the GITHUB_TOKEN env on changesets/action to consume steps.app-token.outputs.token
• Drops every reference to secrets.MACHINE_USER_TOKEN from this workflow
• Same SHA pins as hashintel/.github housekeeping-dependencies.yml (vault-action v3.4.0 4c06c5cc…, create-github-app-token v3.0.0 f8d387b6…)

Out of scope: dispatch-fix.yml, auto-approve.yml, canary-release.yml, ai-pr-review.yml still reference MACHINE_USER_TOKEN and/or the literal hashdotai login but are either not PR-openers or disabled, so they migrate separately. Decommissioning the hashdotai user and the MACHINE_USER_TOKEN secret is also out of scope until every consumer has migrated.

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

The first release run after merge is the live smoke test — the workflow only fires on push to main, so there is no way to fully validate end-to-end without merging. If the App is missing Workflows: write, the "Version Packages" PR creation will fail the first time a release-eligible changeset touches a workflow file; that failure is recoverable by either widening the App permission or reverting this PR.

🐾 Next steps

• Migrate dispatch-fix.yml and auto-approve.yml to the same App-token pattern (separate tickets)
• Decide whether canary-release.yml's git config user.name "hashdotai" push should be reattributed to the App identity or kept as-is
• Once every consumer is migrated, decommission the hashdotai user account and remove the MACHINE_USER_TOKEN secret

🛡 What tests cover this?

No automated tests — this is GitHub Actions configuration that only exercises in the live workflow. Validation happens on the first post-merge release run by checking that (a) the Vault-auth and create-github-app-token steps succeed, (b) the "Version Packages" PR (if any) is authored by hash-worker[bot], and (c) downstream workflows trigger on that PR.

❓ How to test this?

1. Confirm the Org-Admin / Vault prerequisites in Blocked by are met
2. Merge to main
3. On the next release-eligible push, watch the Release workflow run — both the Authenticate Vault and Get token steps must succeed
4. If a "Version Packages" PR is opened, confirm it is authored by hash-worker[bot] (not hashdotai) and that its CI run starts automatically
5. If the run is a publish (not a PR), confirm npm publishing still succeeds — NPM_TOKEN is unchanged and orthogonal to this migration

📹 Demo

N/A — workflow-config change with no UI surface.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 22, 2026 6:07pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 22, 2026 6:07pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 22, 2026 6:07pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes the credentials used by the Release workflow (Vault auth + GitHub App installation token), which can break release PR creation/publishing if the App/Vault permissions or secrets are misconfigured.

Overview
Switches the Release GitHub Actions workflow from a long-lived MACHINE_USER_TOKEN PAT to a short-lived GitHub App installation token.

The workflow now authenticates to Vault via OIDC/JWT to fetch the App credentials, mints an installation token via actions/create-github-app-token, and uses that token for actions/checkout and the changesets/action GITHUB_TOKEN so that generated “Version Packages” PRs can trigger downstream workflows.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 192d0d5. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the Release workflow to mint a short-lived installation token from the github-worker GitHub App (via Vault) instead of using the long-lived MACHINE_USER_TOKEN PAT.
Changes: Adds Vault auth + create-github-app-token steps and routes the resulting token into actions/checkout and changesets/action so “Version Packages” PRs can trigger downstream workflows.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 2 suggestions posted.

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.83%. Comparing base (0eb9937) to head (192d0d5).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8743      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.83%   62.83%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1368     1368              
  Lines      140845   140845              
  Branches     5859     5859              
==========================================
- Hits        88502    88501       -1     
- Misses      51412    51413       +1     
  Partials      931      931              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.41% <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-backend-utils	2.81% <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	96.18% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
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	26.81% <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	29.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	82.17% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.53% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	81.08% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.06% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	91.58% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.06% <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/sre-719-replace-machine_user_token-with-github-worker-app-in-release (192d0d5) with main (0dd5cad)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (97d9048) during the generation of this report, so 0dd5cad 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	$$27.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 177 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.211 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.643 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.713 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.819 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.530 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.322 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 164 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.124 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.571 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.226 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.238 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.253 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.164 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.840 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.564 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.016 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.513 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.906 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.213 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.401 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.555 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.580 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.312 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.102 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.037 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.420 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.285 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.707 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.665 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.206 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.478 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.488 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$45.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.510 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$84.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 353 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.761 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$50.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 204 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.242 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$53.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 331 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.871 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$63.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 416 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$46.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.276 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$429 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.54 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-2.621 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 631 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.966 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$93.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 552 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.172 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$325 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.09 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}8.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.417 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 104 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.712 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.308 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$20.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.207 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 169 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.079 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 132 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.738 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 135 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.356 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 129 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.030 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.202 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 200 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.092 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$35.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 351 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.665 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 317 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.339 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 356 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.487 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$34.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 354 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.883 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 326 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.968 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 337 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.330 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 270 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.021 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$32.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 284 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.527 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.772 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$94.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 481 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.619 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$147 \mathrm{ms} \pm 671 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.927 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 635 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.423 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 511 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.901 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 647 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.019 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$126 \mathrm{ms} \pm 603 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.852 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 471 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.784 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 790 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.554 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 521 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.769 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$119 \mathrm{ms} \pm 638 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.587 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 531 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.691 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 556 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.103 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$138 \mathrm{ms} \pm 550 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$150 \mathrm{ms} \pm 544 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$79.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 4.25 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-27.668 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$550 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.02 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.632 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph