My unique_ptr implementation
Let me first assume that your unique_ptr is supposed to be movable. Then, any basic test case whould have unrevealed this:

unique_ptr&lt;int&gt; ptr1(new int());
unique_ptr&lt;int&gt; ptr2 = std::move(ptr1); // Fails to compile


Recall that = delete-ing special member functions means user-declaring them. And user-declared copy and copy assignment constructors prevent compiler-generated move (assignment) constructors! You have to manually define them. This case is by the way covered by the rule of five/C.21 Core Guidelines, and also have a look at the table posted in this SO answer for an overview of compiler-generated/-deleted/not-declared special member functions.
Is the non-availability of an implicit conversion to bool intended? Checking if a (smart) pointer is in an empty/null state is so common in ordinary control flow statements that clients will expect this to compile:

unique_ptr&lt;SomeType&gt; ptr = ...;

if (ptr) ... // currently fails to compile


But not that this might be debatable. Implicit conversions can cause a lot of pain, so if you intend to not allow them for the sake of a more explicit

if (ptr == nullptr) ... 


that's a design decision. But one that should be documented in a comment at the top of the class.
Except the non-explicit-ness of the second constructor (thanks to @Deduplicator for pointing that out) taking a std::nullptr_t, it is superfluous. You can construct an empty unique_ptr by

unique_ptr&lt;SomeType&gt; empty{nullptr};


which simply invokes the first constructor taking a T* argument. I would remove the second constructor.
... and add a default constructor that initializes ptr_resource to nullptr, as

unique_tr&lt;SomeType&gt; empty;


might be a way of constructing an empty smart pointer that users would expect to compile.
Move-constructing the ptr_resource in the constructor initializer by ptr_resource(std::move(raw_resource)) doesn't make much sense. Just copy the pointer instead. The comment // std::move is used because it is used to indicate that an object may be moved from other resource. is rather confusing, because T* raw_resource is already a pointer, and hence a handle to a resource, not the resource itself.
The release member function can be implemented more conveniently as

T* release() noexcept
{
    return std::exchange(ptr_resource, nullptr);
}

I wouln't let the reset member function throw when the input is a nullptr. Why shouldn't it be allowed to reset a unique_ptr with a nullptr, turning it back into an empty state?
The only facilities you use from the standard library are std::move and std::swap. Those are in &lt;utility&gt;, so you don't need to include &lt;algorithm&gt;, which is probably much heavier in terms of compile times.
I would omit the this-&gt; prefix, it's unnecessarily verbose. But that might be a matter of taste.
Have you considered custom deleters? This makes the class template more reusable in scenarios other than pointers to heap resources, e.g. closing a file upon destruction etc.