Update npm package @eslint/eslintrc to v3.3.5

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
@eslint/eslintrc	3.3.3 → 3.3.5

---

Warning

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

---

Release Notes

eslint/eslintrc (@​eslint/eslintrc)

v3.3.5

Compare Source

Bug Fixes

• update dependency minimatch to ^3.1.5 (#​227) (3dc2381)

v3.3.4

Compare Source

Bug Fixes

• update ajv to 6.14.0 to address security vulnerabilities (#​221) (9139140)
• update minimatch to 3.1.3 to address security vulnerabilities (#​224) (30339d0)

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"
• 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	Error		Jul 11, 2026 11:32am
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 11, 2026 11:32am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Error		Jul 11, 2026 11:32am
petrinaut	Error	Comment	Jul 11, 2026 11:32am

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Single dependency version pin in the shared ESLint config package with no application logic changes.

Overview
Bumps @eslint/eslintrc from 3.3.3 to 3.3.5 in libs/@local/eslint (Renovate). No source changes—only the shared ESLint package manifest.

Upstream 3.3.4–3.3.5 mainly refresh transitive deps (ajv, minimatch) for known vulnerabilities; FlatCompat usage in the deprecated ESLint config path is unchanged.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a307f85. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the shared ESLint configuration workspace to use @eslint/eslintrc v3.3.4.

Changes:

• Bumped @eslint/eslintrc from 3.3.3 → 3.3.4 in libs/@local/eslint/package.json.
• Updated yarn.lock to reflect the new dependency tree.

Technical Notes: The upstream release notes indicate security-related fixes via transitive updates (notably ajv and minimatch).

_{🤖 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.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing deps/js/eslint-eslintrc-3.x (2da921f) with main (1e22831)}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.49%. Comparing base (1e22831) to head (2da921f).
⚠️ Report is 76 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8502      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.49%   62.49%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1318     1318              
  Lines      134234   134234              
  Branches     5520     5520              
==========================================
- Hits        83896    83893       -3     
- Misses      49423    49426       +3     
  Partials      915      915              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.40% <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-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> (-0.05%)	⬇️
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	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	29.69% <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.

[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	$$26.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 223 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$13.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 300 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$25.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 223 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 175 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}13.1 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.88 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.847 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.741 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.068 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$56.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$47.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 188 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.54 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$52.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$44.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 200 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$65.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 369 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$62.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 293 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.309 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$57.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 263 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 443 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$47.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 192 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$295 \mathrm{ms} \pm 714 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 120 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 113 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 122 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$24.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 205 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.559 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$20.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 128 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 179 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$37.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 291 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.9 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$35.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 365 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 280 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.334 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 313 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$34.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 283 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$35.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$35.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 271 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$38.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 253 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.4 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$36.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 276 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$92.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 476 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$147 \mathrm{ms} \pm 603 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 633 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 580 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 571 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$126 \mathrm{ms} \pm 555 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 476 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.431 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 553 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.074 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 516 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$119 \mathrm{ms} \pm 529 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 540 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.926 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 547 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.272 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$195 \mathrm{ms} \pm 830 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.364 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$154 \mathrm{ms} \pm 762 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-24.326 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$42.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 265 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$555 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.19 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.527 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[hash-worker]

⚠️ Artifact update problem

Renovate failed to update an artifact related to this branch. You probably do not want to merge this PR as-is.

♻ Renovate will retry this branch, including artifacts, only when one of the following happens:

• any of the package files in this branch needs updating, or
• the branch becomes conflicted, or
• you click the rebase/retry checkbox if found above, or
• you rename this PR's title to start with "rebase!" to trigger it manually

The artifact failure details are included below:

File name: yarn.lock

error This project's package.json defines "packageManager": "yarn@4.16.0". However the current global version of Yarn is 1.22.22.

Presence of the "packageManager" field indicates that the project is meant to be used with Corepack, a tool included by default with all official Node.js distributions starting from 16.9 and 14.19.
Corepack must currently be enabled by running corepack enable in your terminal. For more information, check out https://yarnpkg.com/corepack.

[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 a307f85. Configure here.}

[cursor]

Lockfile out of sync

Medium Severity

@eslint/eslintrc is bumped to 3.3.5 in package.json, but yarn.lock still pins @local/eslint to 3.3.3. CI runs yarn install --immutable, so installs fail, and the intended security fixes from ajv/minimatch do not apply to this workspace’s direct dependency.

 

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a307f85. Configure here.}