diff --git a/.gemini/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.md b/.gemini/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..37b7c2e1c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gemini/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+name: code-reviewer
+description:
+  Use this skill to review code. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree)
+  and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). It focuses on correctness, maintainability,
+  and adherence to project standards.
+---
+
+# Code Reviewer
+
+This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Determine Review Target
+*   **Remote PR**: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
+*   **Local Changes**: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).
+
+### 2. Preparation
+
+#### For Remote PRs:
+1.  **Checkout**: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
+    ```bash
+    gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER>
+    ```
+2.  **Preflight**: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early.
+    ```bash
+    npm run preflight
+    ```
+3.  **Context**: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.
+
+#### For Local Changes:
+1.  **Identify Changes**:
+    *   Check status: `git status`
+    *   Read diffs: `git diff` (working tree) and/or `git diff --staged` (staged).
+2.  **Preflight (Optional)**: If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run `npm run preflight` before reviewing.
+
+### 3. In-Depth Analysis
+Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:
+
+*   **Correctness**: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
+*   **Maintainability**: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
+*   **Readability**: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
+*   **Efficiency**: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
+*   **Security**: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
+*   **Edge Cases and Error Handling**: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
+*   **Testability**: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.
+
+### 4. Provide Feedback
+
+#### Structure
+*   **Summary**: A high-level overview of the review.
+*   **Findings**:
+    *   **Critical**: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes.
+    *   **Improvements**: Suggestions for better code quality or performance.
+    *   **Nitpicks**: Formatting or minor style issues (optional).
+*   **Conclusion**: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes).
+
+#### Tone
+*   Be constructive, professional, and friendly.
+*   Explain *why* a change is requested.
+*   For approvals, acknowledge the specific value of the contribution.
+
+### 5. Cleanup (Remote PRs only)
+*   After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., `main` or `master`).