🤖 Update Mock Benchmark Results - #6810

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

_{A rabbit checks the timing chart,
New numbers hop from chart to chart.
The JSON fields line up in rows,
Fresh timestamps mark the data flows.
Six benchmark sets now rest anew.}

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

Greptile Summary

This automated update refreshes the mock-library benchmark artifacts and documentation with results from the 2026-09-15 workflow run.

• Updates six benchmark categories across their Markdown tables, charts, and category JSON artifacts.
• Synchronizes the aggregate latest.json and summary.json metadata with the refreshed results.
• Records the new benchmark host architecture as x86-64-v4 while retaining the same SDK and runtime versions.

Confidence Score: 5/5

The PR appears safe to merge because the generated benchmark documentation and JSON artifacts are internally consistent and introduce no identified behavioral or schema failure.

All six benchmark categories, aggregate counts, timestamps, environment metadata, tables, and chart values align across their generated representations, and no repository consumer was found that requires a uniform set of optional benchmark columns.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "chore: update mock benchmark results" | Re-trigger Greptile}

Code Review

Scope: This PR is a fully automated benchmark-results update (scheduled Mock Benchmarks workflow run 34920744772). All 15 changed files are confined to docs/docs/benchmarks/mocks/*.md and docs/static/benchmarks/mocks/*.json — regenerated timestamps, BenchmarkDotNet numbers, and the corresponding Mermaid chart data. No engine, source generator, assertion, or test code is touched.

Findings: None. This is data-only regeneration with no logic changes, so the project's core-engine/generator-parity, AOT/trimming, allocation, and async constraints in CLAUDE.md don't apply here. The numbers are internally consistent between the .md tables/charts and their corresponding .json sources (spot-checked Callback, CombinedWorkflow, MockCreation), and the run-to-run deltas (e.g. host RyuJIT x86-64-v3 → x86-64-v4, timestamp bump) look like expected noise/environment variance from a scheduled CI run rather than a regression being masked.

Verdict: Looks good — safe to merge as an automated docs/data refresh. No architectural or design concerns since there is no logic in this diff to critique.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code