So if there are no skills now how do you do the things they used to represent? DM fiat?
They're ability checks, in the way that they've always been ability checks (with individual bonuses you invest in). Only now you don't really call them skills as a separate subsystem. You don't generally get a +2 to hide or +5 to jump with this.
One of the things they're trying to do is streamline gameplay in reducing dependency on skill checks. So if someone has a high Strength score, they can probably lift something heavy, jump a basic gap, etc., so they don't have to roll for that; they succeed because they should be able to. The Wizard probably has more cause to roll a check for simple strength-related activities that a Fighter can do on a basic level, or the Fighter might still need to roll to jump especially far, or bash a door in, or something, as the packet says, that there's even a reasonable chance that they could fail at.
Just like how they mention how a player in another edition might give an elaborate, moving speech, but flub their diplomacy check and technically fail. So the idea is that it's more in the DM's court whether an action even calls for a check. If you do something especially well, describe it well, etc., maybe the DM still makes you roll but gives you advantage based on circumstances, rather than a flat skill bonus. There's still the chance that you fail, but greater chance that you may succeed.
I like the concept, and the skills are still there (as part of the ability scores), but there are less... fiddly bits. Some people like fiddly bits. But I think it contributes to slowing things down at the table, and for giving more things for people to argue over at the table. But hell, what do I know?
