[benchmark] Request for call-path / fairness review (GLD.SerializerBenchmark)

Hello,

I'm Leonid Ganeline. We maintain an open multi-language serializer benchmark:

https://github.com/leo-gan/GLD.SerializerBenchmark

Your library is included in the suite (language: cpp) under these harness names:

- `flexbuffers` — https://github.com/leo-gan/GLD.SerializerBenchmark/blob/master/cpp/src/serializers/ser_schema.cpp
- `flatbuffers` — https://github.com/leo-gan/GLD.SerializerBenchmark/blob/master/cpp/src/serializers/ser_schema.cpp

We would value a short review of whether our measurement is fair and idiomatic:

1. Does our call pattern match how you recommend using the library in performance-sensitive code?
2. Should we change options, encoder/decoder reuse, types, or buffer handling?
3. Is there a better API (or a second entry point worth a separate row in the suite)?

Concrete notes or a small PR against that wrapper would help a lot. We are happy to credit you in the docs.

The repo also includes a short Serialization course (101–401). If something important about your design is easy to misstate, a pointer is welcome—we can update the docs ourselves.

Thank you for maintaining this library.

Best regards,
Leonid Ganeline

Start with cpp/src/serializers/ser_schema.cpp and trace the flexbuffers and flatbuffers benchmark calls, including options, reuse, types, and buffer handling. Compare those calls with the library's recommended performance-sensitive usage, then document concrete fairness findings or submit a small wrapper PR; done means the benchmark authors have actionable guidance or an accepted update.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.