[lunelson]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Every Brunch persona run and one-turn probe now ends with a run packet that accounts for where each exchange's time went. That is the measurement FE-1943 judges turn-time changes by. The persona launcher also gains a message limit, so runs can be compared over the same number of exchanges, and two bugs that stalled or cut short those runs are fixed.

This PR carries the measuring tools only. The guidance variants under test (batched steps, reply first) are not in it.

🔗 Related links

• FE-1943 (internal)
• Bottom of a stack. FE-1850, FE-1336: Explain a net element from the Ledger, on the canvas and to Brunch #10067 (FE-1850, FE-1336) sits on it, and FE-1943: Shorten Brunch's turns by cutting model calls and Ledger text #10070 (FE-1943) on that.

🔍 What does this change?

• Run packets. evidence/packet.json and evidence/packet.md record, per exchange: active time (wall time less approval waits), time to the first reply text, model steps split into hidden reasoning, tool-argument streaming and reply text, each step's shape by tool category, the tool mix, skill activations and reloads, context compactions, Ledger commit sizes, net growth, tokens and cost. yarn workspace @apps/brunch-agent packet:run <run-dir>… writes or refreshes packets for retained runs without spending model turns.
• --max-messages <n> stops a persona run once Brunch has replied to the persona's nth message. The opening is not counted.
• Approvals under the React Compiler. When one step held two destructive calls, the second approval never showed and the turn hung. The compiler had memoized the approval tools on a version counter it never read, so their identity never changed. The tools are now built from an immutable snapshot of the waiting calls, read through useSyncExternalStore, so each new call gets its approval.
• Ctrl-C in the launcher. Playwright's SIGINT handler exited the launcher before cleanup and before writing the packet. The launcher now owns SIGINT.
• Compiled website tests. The website's unit tests now run through the same React Compiler configuration as the build (react-plugin.ts), so Petrinaut AI's tests run compiled too. react/memo-dependencies is enabled for Brunch's plugin only, through the website's oxlint overrides. Brunch's abortAutomaticTools is now stable, so the callbacks that call it stay stable too.

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

• Doesn't touch a publishable library. No changeset.

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

• The evaluation README and the persona README describe run packets and --max-messages.

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

• Does not affect the execution graph. packet:run is a package script, not a Turbo task.

⚠️ Known issues

• The probe keeps no server log, so its packets have no argument-streaming times.
• The guidance variants are measured in local persona runs; their results are not part of this PR.

🛡 What tests cover this?

• Unit tests for packet building and chronology-log parsing.
• In-editor tests for two destructive calls in one step, under the compiled website tests.
• Lint, type, unit, build and integration checks pass for @apps/brunch-agent, @apps/petrinaut-website, @hashintel/petrinaut and @hashintel/brunch-agent.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hash	Ready	Preview	Oct 23, 2026 9:16am UTC
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Oct 23, 2026 9:16am UTC
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Oct 23, 2026 9:16am UTC

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Oct 23, 2026 9:16am UTC

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (ln/fe-1960-brunch-plugin-chat@7862e25). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                       Coverage Diff                        @@
##             ln/fe-1960-brunch-plugin-chat   #10066   +/-   ##
================================================================
  Coverage                                 ?   68.08%           
================================================================
  Files                                    ?     2005           
  Lines                                    ?   206155           
  Branches                                 ?     8792           
================================================================
  Hits                                     ?   140364           
  Misses                                   ?    64117           
  Partials                                 ?     1674           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	7.47% <ø> (?)
apps.hash-api	15.59% <ø> (?)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.85% <ø> (?)
durable-kernel	86.65% <ø> (?)
error-stack	90.55% <ø> (?)
harpc-codec	84.61% <ø> (?)
harpc-net	96.26% <ø> (?)
harpc-tower	67.11% <ø> (?)
harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (?)
harpc-wire-protocol	93.85% <ø> (?)
hash-codec	72.09% <ø> (?)
hash-config	83.57% <ø> (?)
hash-graph	21.07% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-api	39.82% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-atlas	80.01% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-authentication	96.71% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-authorization	68.47% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-embeddings	91.92% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-postgres-store	31.60% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-store	50.82% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-temporal-versioning	50.53% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (?)
hash-graph-validation	85.37% <ø> (?)
hash-integrations-definition	95.05% <ø> (?)
hash-middleware	87.62% <ø> (?)
hash-secret	99.50% <ø> (?)
hashql-ast	90.01% <ø> (?)
hashql-compiletest	28.71% <ø> (?)
hashql-core	81.41% <ø> (?)
hashql-diagnostics	72.85% <ø> (?)
hashql-eval	81.55% <ø> (?)
hashql-hir	89.10% <ø> (?)
hashql-mir	87.22% <ø> (?)
hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.77% <ø> (?)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <ø> (?)
local.hash-backend-utils	6.21% <ø> (?)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.79% <ø> (?)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	32.37% <ø> (?)
problematic	90.09% <ø> (?)
railroad-plugin	45.28% <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.

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

1 warning

⚠️ Unable to measure the execution of 6 benchmarks

These benchmarks measured no execution time, so their results are not comparable and count as unchanged. This usually happens when the compiler removes the code under test.

Prevent compiler optimizations

See affected benchmarks

✅ 74 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 24 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing ln/fe-1943-shorten-turn-times (f2e4594) with main (91f7707)²}

Footnotes

1. 24 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on ln/fe-1960-brunch-plugin-chat (7862e25) during the generation of this report, so main (91f7707) was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[github-actions]

Benchmark results

hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 270 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$14.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 147 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.506 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$47.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 572 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 185 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$27.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 317 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.759 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$15.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$4.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 41.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.88 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 49.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$5.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.551 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.106 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.569 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 39.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.411 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.561 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.238 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 39.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.594 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$32.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 231 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.837 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$74.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 810 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.043 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$37.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 290 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.902 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$40.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 249 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.281 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$43.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 358 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.137 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$35.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 290 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.883 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$429 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.43 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.100 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$92.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 696 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$81.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 508 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.486 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$291 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.50 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.610 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.828 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.337 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.789 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 105 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 127 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 155 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$13.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 133 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}16.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 153 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 107 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.796 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 120 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$62.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 601 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 850 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.609 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$68.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 637 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$78.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 764 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$86.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 799 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.085 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$93.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 830 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$49.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 502 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.584 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$78.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 574 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.733 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$56.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 536 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.808 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$66.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 569 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$66.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 576 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.835 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$66.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 449 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.633 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 753 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 929 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$24.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 224 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.968 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$536 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.67 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.903 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit f2e4594. Configure here.}

[semgrep-code-hashintel]

Semgrep found 2 node_timing_attack findings:

• apps/petrinaut-website/src/main/app/plugins/petrinaut-ai/chat/assistant-chat/chat-api.ts
  • L20-22 - Triage
• apps/petrinaut-website/src/main/app/plugins/brunch/chat/ai-assistant-panel/editor-api.ts
  • L19-21 - Triage

🟡 Medium severity issue identified in your code:

String comparisons using '===', '!==', '!=' and '==' is vulnerable to timing attacks. A timing attack allows the attacker to learn potentially sensitive information by, for example, measuring how long it takes for the application to respond to a request. More info: https://nodejs.org/en/learn/getting-started/security-best-practices#information-exposure-through-timing-attacks-cwe-208