Update GitHub Action hashintel/.github to 69449a7

[hash-dependencies]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
hashintel/.github (changelog)	action	digest	8c1a3b1 → 69449a7

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • At any time (no schedule defined)
• 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 Mend Renovate.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 11, 2026 12:39pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Aug 11, 2026 12:39pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 11, 2026 12:39pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Digest-only CI pin updates with no logic or secret wiring changes; release still depends on the upstream shared action behavior at the new commit.

Overview
Bumps the pinned hashintel/.github digest from 8c1a3b1 to 69449a7 on the shared main ref in two workflows.

housekeeping.yml points the Renovate renovate job at the newer housekeeping-dependencies.yml reusable workflow. release.yml updates the github-app-token composite action used to mint the GitHub App token for release and Changesets publishing.

No workflow inputs, secrets, or job structure change—only the reusable action/workflow SHAs.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 1cec5d8. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[codspeed]

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 deps/gha/hashintel-.github-digest (1cec5d8) with main (5253e33)}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.63%. Comparing base (5253e33) to head (1cec5d8).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9185      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   59.63%   59.63%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1420     1420              
  Lines      138767   138767              
  Branches     6555     6555              
==========================================
- Hits        82755    82752       -3     
- Misses      54948    54951       +3     
  Partials     1064     1064              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	14.00% <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	12.22% <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	96.19% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️
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	29.33% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	46.78% <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.

[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	$$27.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.880 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.605 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 106 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.723 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 408 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 125 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.381 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$23.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 198 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.401 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.422 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.823 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 111 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.635 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.487 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.958 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.472 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.229 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.256 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.497 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.757 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.731 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.637 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.870 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.328 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.238 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.422 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.605 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.533 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.218 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.565 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.040 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.671 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.923 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.552 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.279 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.499 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$42.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.765 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$33.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 252 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$36.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 216 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.166 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$31.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 193 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.087 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$42.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 277 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.217 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$50.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 383 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$41.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 264 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.883 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$85.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 499 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.980 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$34.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 256 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$273 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.28 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}5.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.537 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.316 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.344 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.182 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.950 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.204 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 107 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.498 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.080 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.005 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.437 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.103 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.141 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.936 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.150 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.537 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.635 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.644 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.394 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$59.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 397 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$112 \mathrm{ms} \pm 679 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.365 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$67.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 480 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$78.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 558 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$85.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 517 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$91.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 649 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.410 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$43.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 290 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.570 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$74.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 568 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$52.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 389 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$62.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 457 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 441 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 462 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.88 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 571 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.834 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 653 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.610 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$23.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 153 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.437 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$516 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.30 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.604 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph