H-6472: Replace Biome with Oxfmt for formatting

[indietyp]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Replaces Biome with Oxfmt as the project formatter. Biome was only used for formatting (linter and import organizer were disabled), so this is a direct replacement.

Oxfmt picks up three things Biome had disabled pending v2: import sorting, package.json sorting, and Tailwind CSS class sorting.

🔗 Related links

• Oxfmt documentation

🔍 What does this change?

• Added oxfmt.config.ts with equivalent formatting rules
• Updated all biome format invocations to oxfmt across:
  • Root package.json (lint:format, fix:format)
  • .lefthook.yml pre-commit hook
  • Codegen scripts (hash-api, hash-isomorphic-utils, internal-api-client, ds-components, repo-chores)
• Updated mise install biome to mise install oxfmt in Dockerfiles and Vercel install scripts
• Updated editor extension recommendations (VS Code, Zed)
• Updated .github/actions/prune-repository to copy oxfmt.config.ts
• Updated .github/CONTRIBUTING.md tool list
• Removed biome.jsonc

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

🐾 Next steps

• Replace ESLint with Oxlint

🛡 What tests cover this?

• CI lint:format step exercises oxfmt --check on the full repo

❓ How to test this?

1. Run yarn lint:format and confirm it passes
2. Run yarn fix:format and confirm it formats correctly
3. Confirm lefthook pre-commit hook runs oxfmt on staged files

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 20, 2026 7:00pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	May 20, 2026 7:00pm

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	May 20, 2026 7:00pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Switches the repo’s primary formatter and related automation (CI + pre-commit), which can cause widespread formatting churn or CI failures if config/CLI parity isn’t exact.

Overview
Replaces Biome-based formatting with Oxc’s oxfmt across repo automation: pre-commit formatting now runs oxfmt, mise installs oxfmt, and the prune action ensures oxfmt.config.ts is carried into pruned workspaces.

Updates docs/config to reflect the new formatter (e.g. CONTRIBUTING lint tool list, editor extension recommendations) and relaxes markdownlint by disabling table-column-style. Large portions of .claude skill docs, agent rules, and assorted markdown/json examples are reformatted (tables, fenced code blocks, YAML quoting, and JSONC layout) to match the new formatting expectations.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit d8b90f4. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[indietyp]

• H-6472: Replace Biome with Oxfmt for formatting #8716 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

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

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: This PR replaces Biome with Oxfmt as the repository-wide formatter.

Changes:

• Adds oxfmt.config.ts with formatting rules and enables import/package.json/Tailwind sorting.
• Updates root and workspace scripts to use oxfmt for lint:format and fix:format.
• Updates the .lefthook.yml pre-commit formatting command to run Oxfmt on staged files.
• Updates codegen scripts/hooks (e.g. GraphQL codegen) to format generated outputs with Oxfmt.
• Updates tooling install paths (mise/Docker/Vercel) and editor extension recommendations to reference Oxfmt.
• Removes Biome configuration and drops the separate package.json lint/fix steps now covered by Oxfmt.

Technical Notes: CI formatting is now enforced via oxfmt --check, and oxfmt is added as a dev dependency.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 2 suggestions posted.

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

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing bm/h-6472-replace-biome-with-oxfmt (d360047) with main (2d5ae4c)}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 62.84%. Comparing base (2d5ae4c) to head (d360047).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../shared/get-llm-response/get-anthropic-response.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8716      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.90%   62.84%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files        1368     1368              
  Lines      140713   140815     +102     
  Branches     5832     5852      +20     
==========================================
- Hits        88510    88502       -8     
- Misses      51272    51382     +110     
  Partials      931      931              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.41% <0.00%> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	2.81% <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.

[kube]

Thanks!

Rebased

[TimDiekmann]

Not really satisfied with this approach. The previous comments stated what was ignored and why.

[indietyp]

Same, thank you for the spot, when removing the annotation I tried to preserve the reasoning (as you can see in all the other places) but missed this one because it was a line comment and not a block comment and I got overzealous, fixed in d8b90f4. Checked the other places, they already have said comment, but accidentally removed that one. Sorry!

[TimDiekmann]

I thought license files were ignored?

[indietyp]

They are; that was a faux pas from my side. I forgot to rebase the LICENSE.md, fixed in d8b90f4

See the output of git range-diff at https://github.com/hashintel/hash/actions/runs/26183134386

[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	$$27.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.890 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.179 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$13.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$42.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 280 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.545 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 188 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.864 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 191 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.8 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.567 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.323 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.096 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.540 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.502 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.237 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.275 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.349 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.156 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.744 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.143 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.577 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.841 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.314 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.129 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.416 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.628 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.743 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.773 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.779 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.419 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$44.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 219 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.693 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$83.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 403 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$50.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 192 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.255 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$52.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 435 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$60.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.378 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$46.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 151 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.857 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$423 \mathrm{ms} \pm 935 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 430 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.088 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$83.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 418 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.630 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$286 \mathrm{ms} \pm 733 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.010 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 100 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.063 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.747 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$24.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.286 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.229 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.384 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.794 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$19.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$25.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.573 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$33.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.684 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$32.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 219 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.189 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$32.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.165 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$33.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 276 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.923 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 253 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.120 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$32.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.932 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$33.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 228 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.762 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 250 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.197 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$34.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 291 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.064 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.570 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$89.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 411 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.911 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$141 \mathrm{ms} \pm 424 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.163 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$96.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 408 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.493 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 497 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.232 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 460 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.364 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 394 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.276 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$99.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 386 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.342 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 491 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.304 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.254 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 416 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.338 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$117 \mathrm{ms} \pm 400 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.024 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 379 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.289 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$139 \mathrm{ms} \pm 359 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.324 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$152 \mathrm{ms} \pm 412 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.213 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 429 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.971 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$557 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.31 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.456 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph