diff --git a/.github/skills/code-review/SKILL.md b/.github/skills/code-review/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9ed32098a796
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.github/skills/code-review/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# Skill: Code review for TheAlgorithms/Python
+
+Review a pull request against the rules already written in
+[`CONTRIBUTING.md`](../../../CONTRIBUTING.md). The goal is a review that any
+reviewer (human or AI) can run the same way every time and that produces a clear,
+kind, actionable verdict.
+
+## How to run this skill
+
+Read the PR diff, then work through the four `CONTRIBUTING.md` sections in order
+and emit the fixed output shape below. Cite the exact rule you are applying and
+suggest the fix — never just "rejected".
+
+### 1. Before contributing / Is this an algorithm?
+
+- [ ] The change adds, fixes, or documents **one algorithm** — not multiple, and
+      not both code and doctest changes in the same PR.
+- [ ] It is a genuine algorithm or data structure (see the *What is an Algorithm?*
+      section), not a script, snippet, or exercise dump.
+- [ ] It is **not already in the repository** (search the existing directories).
+- [ ] **No earlier open PR** already does the same thing — link it if one exists.
+- [ ] Properly attributed — no plagiarism; prior sources credited.
+
+### 2. Coding Style
+
+- [ ] File and directory names are lowercase, use underscores, and land inside an
+      existing directory.
+- [ ] Public functions/classes have **type hints**.
+- [ ] Public functions have **doctests that actually pass**.
+- [ ] Descriptive variable and function names (no single letters where a word helps).
+- [ ] Code is formatted and lint-clean (`ruff`, `pre-commit`).
+
+### 3. Other Requirements for Submissions
+
+- [ ] At least one **Wikipedia (or equivalent) URL** documenting the algorithm.
+- [ ] Docstring explains what the function does and its parameters/returns.
+- [ ] No unnecessary third-party dependencies.
+
+### 4. Verdict — fixed output shape
+
+Emit exactly these headings so reviews are comparable and easy to automate:
+
+```
+### Is this an algorithm? — <yes/no + one-line why>
+### Duplicate / prior-art check — <#NNNN | none found>
+### Coding style — <pass | issues: …>
+### Other requirements (doctests, type hints, descriptive names, Wikipedia URL) — <pass | issues: …>
+### Verdict — <approve | request changes | close> + one-line reason
+```
+
+## Tone
+
+Be specific and kind. Point at the exact `CONTRIBUTING.md` rule and offer the fix
+rather than a bare rejection — first-time and Hacktoberfest contributors are more
+likely to come back and improve the PR when the path forward is clear.
+
+## Map findings to labels
+
+Where a finding matches an existing label, name it so the review lines up with the
+maintenance/cleanup tooling:
+
+- missing/failing doctests → `require tests`
+- missing type hints → `require type hints`
+- non-descriptive names → `require descriptive names`
+- CI red → `tests are failing`
+- otherwise ready for a maintainer → `awaiting reviews`