macOS: version-numbered binary name (e.g. `2.1.196`) is confusing in permission prompts — suggest `claude-code-<version>`

Summary

The Claude Code CLI installs each release as an executable named after its bare version number (e.g. ~/.local/share/claude/versions/2.1.196). Because macOS permission prompts and Activity Monitor display the executable's filename, users see an opaque process named something like 2.1.196 requesting access to sensitive resources — external/removable drives, Documents, Full Disk Access, etc.

This is confusing and looks alarming: a bare version number asking for access to an external SSD reads like potential malware to most users, with no indication that it's Claude Code.

Steps to reproduce

1. Install/run Claude Code on macOS (version installed at ~/.local/share/claude/versions/<version>).
2. Start a session that touches an external/removable volume (or any TCC-protected location).
3. Observe the macOS permission prompt — it identifies the process only as <version> (e.g. 2.1.196).

Also visible via:

ps aux | grep 2.1.196
/Users/<user>/.local/share/claude/versions/2.1.196 --bg-spare ...
/Users/<user>/.local/share/claude/versions/2.1.196 --bg-pty-host ...

Expected

The binary name should clearly identify the app, e.g. claude-code-2.1.196 (or claude-code with the version tracked separately), so permission dialogs and process listings read as claude-code-2.1.196 instead of a bare 2.1.196.

Why it matters

• Security-conscious users can't tell a legitimate Claude Code helper from something suspicious.
• Background helper processes (--bg-spare, --bg-pty-host) compound the confusion.
• A clear, branded binary name improves trust and reduces support/security questions.

Environment

• Platform: macOS (Darwin 25.5.0)
• Claude Code version: 2.1.196