release: v3.37.2 - hook format fix, 3 resource evals, cross-model review sections

- Fix: hook format updated to matcher+hooks[] structure (settings.json, learning-mode.md)
- New guide sections: Cross-Model Review, Lightweight Role-Switch, Task Sizing (ultimate-guide.md)
- Resource Eval: ManoMano Project Aegis — Serena MCP benchmark (3/5, ecosystem gap identified)
- Resource Eval: Multi-Session Management Landscape (4/5)
- Resource Eval: Ischenko workflow quality (2/5, marginal)
- Version bump: 3.37.1 → 3.37.2

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/resource-evaluations/ischenko-claude-code-workflow-quality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Resource Evaluation: "You're probably using Claude Code wrong" - Alex Ischenko
+
+## Metadata
+
+| Field | Value |
+|-------|-------|
+| **Author** | Alex Ischenko |
+| **Role** | AI-Driven CTO, Top 100 Leaders @ CTO Craft |
+| **Published** | 2026-03-19 |
+| **Type** | LinkedIn Pulse article |
+| **URL** | https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/youre-probably-using-claude-code-wrong-i-too-until-shift-ischenko-bwdkf/ |
+| **Evaluated** | 2026-03-19 |
+| **Score** | 2/5 (Marginal) |
+| **Decision** | Do not integrate |
+
+## Summary
+
+LinkedIn article arguing that Claude Code quality is an engineering system question, not a model question. Proposes 7 workflow patterns for improving output quality, each with a full copy-paste prompt template:
+
+1. **Reality checks before implementation** - verify codebase assumptions before coding
+2. **Separate author/reviewer** - two-role pattern within same session
+3. **Project-aware reviews** - review with project context, not just diff
+4. **Requirements as mandatory artifact** - REQUIREMENTS.md before code
+5. **TDD workflow** - anchor behavior with tests first
+6. **Small task sizes** - reduce scope for better AI output
+7. **Human abstraction elevation** - move engineers to architecture/trade-off level
+
+Claims "20-30% quality improvement" from these workflow changes.
+
+## Scoring Rationale
+
+### Overlap with Guide (75-85%)
+
+| Pattern | Guide Coverage | Location |
+|---|---|---|
+| Reality checks | Partial | `exploration-workflow.md`, Plan Mode (L3717) |
+| Author/reviewer | Moderate | SE-CoVe (L13095), Scope-Focused Agents (L4410) |
+| Project-aware reviews | Partial | `code-review.md` (CLAUDE.md + REVIEW.md) |
+| Requirements artifact | Partial | `spec-first.md` (full workflow) |
+| TDD | Strong | `tdd-with-claude.md`, L19183-19320, skill template L7336 |
+| Small tasks | Scattered | `spec-first.md` L62-93, L1529, L1733 |
+| Human elevation | Thin | L17458, L15725, L3216 |
+
+### What's Unique
+
+The 7 copy-paste prompt templates are the only non-redundant element. These are practical formatting convenience but not structural insight. The guide's existing workflow files and skill templates serve the same purpose.
+
+### Credibility Assessment
+
+- No GitHub repo, no production artifact, no tooling behind the article
+- "20-30% quality improvement" has no methodology, no baseline, no control group
+- Compare to higher-scored resources: Cullen (shipped working slash command, 5/5), Chabaud (clonable repo, 3/5), Rusitschka (repo with working code, 4/5)
+
+### Accumulation Risk
+
+The guide already integrates Chabaud, Rusitschka, Cullen, and paddo.dev team tips covering adjacent workflow territory. Adding Ischenko without new substance dilutes the signal-to-noise ratio.
+
+## Identified Gaps (for future work, not from this resource)
+
+Two gaps surfaced during analysis that the guide could address independently:
+
+1. **Multi-model review pattern** (near zero coverage): deliberately using different models to review each other's work. Ischenko mentions it briefly but provides no template.
+2. **Consolidated task sizing section**: currently scattered across multiple files with no single reference point.
+
+## Fact-Check
+
+| Claim | Status | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| Author credentials | Unverifiable | CTO Craft exists, "Top 100" not independently verifiable |
+| "20-30% quality improvement" | Unfalsifiable | No methodology described |
+| Tool landscape (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) | Verified | All exist as active tools |
+| LLM behavioral patterns (overconfidence, compound errors) | Verified | Well-documented in literature |
+
+## Decision
+
+**Do not integrate.** Solid engineering advice but the guide already covers these patterns through better-sourced, more detailed, and more production-grounded resources. The prompt templates could theoretically be extracted as addenda to existing workflow files, but this is low priority.