Update GitHub Action hashintel/.github to 0849d94

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
hashintel/.github	action	digest	a0df113 → 0849d94

---

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • "before 2am on saturday"
• Automerge
  • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 4, 2026 2:00pm
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 4, 2026 2:00pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 4, 2026 2:00pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 4, 2026 2:00pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Low risk YAML-only change that just repoints reusable workflow references; behavior changes, if any, come from the upstream hashintel/.github update.

Overview
Updates CI to use the newer hashintel/.github reusable workflows by bumping the pinned digest from a0df113… to 0849d94… for housekeeping dependencies and preflight jobs (stale approvals, dependencies, and todo comments).

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 6fcce28. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the reusable workflow references in .github/workflows/preflight.yml to use hashintel/.github digest 53a3add.
Why: Keeps preflight CI jobs (dismiss stale approvals, dependency checks, todo comments) aligned with the latest centralized workflow implementation.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

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 62.08%. Comparing base (d544656) to head (6fcce28).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8620   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.08%   62.08%           
=======================================
  Files        1341     1341           
  Lines      135072   135072           
  Branches     5744     5744           
=======================================
+ Hits        83855    83856    +1     
+ Misses      50309    50308    -1     
  Partials      908      908           

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	0.00% <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	96.22% <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	29.63% <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 deps/gha/hashintel-.github-digest (6fcce28) with main (d544656)}

[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	$$27.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 220 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.026 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.982 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.754 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$42.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 396 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.696 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.026 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$23.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 158 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.449 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 180 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.817 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.473 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.030 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.532 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.232 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.732 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.121 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.932 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.945 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.049 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.303 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.136 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.188 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.058 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.737 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.490 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.189 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.081 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.296 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.387 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.479 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.269 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.369 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.414 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.641 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.400 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$55.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 357 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$46.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 239 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.274 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$50.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 244 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$44.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 210 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.402 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$62.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 445 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.851 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$62.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 382 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$56.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.124 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$103 \mathrm{ms} \pm 536 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.012 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$46.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 215 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.289 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$293 \mathrm{ms} \pm 908 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 104 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.632 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.629 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.935 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.494 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 159 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.220 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.605 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.205 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.733 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 135 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.091 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 210 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$33.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.389 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$35.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 309 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$34.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 322 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.316 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$35.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$35.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 339 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.122 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$34.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.032 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 311 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.055 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$35.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 297 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.893 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$91.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 440 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.518 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$147 \mathrm{ms} \pm 531 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.439 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$98.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 513 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.751 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 569 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.898 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$117 \mathrm{ms} \pm 516 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.774 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$126 \mathrm{ms} \pm 596 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.102 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 510 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.209 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$133 \mathrm{ms} \pm 655 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.196 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 556 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.429 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 574 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.047 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 673 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.307 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 563 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.294 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$186 \mathrm{ms} \pm 978 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$167 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.48 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.789 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$39.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 243 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.015 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$574 \mathrm{ms} \pm 921 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph