The more I think about skill systems in D&D and D&D-likes, the more I come to the conclusion that while the core idea isn't that bad, having a "skill class" certainly is. Even if your skills are developed enough to be useful in combat (mostly looking at PF2 here), your action economy doesn't support using more than 2 or 3, often with overlapping purposes with other skills.

And the identity of Rogue has been more and more diluted over the editions - currently it basically stands as a "DEX Fighter-like, but with more skills and less attacks", which is part of the martial class issue with how basically every martial (beyond perhaps Monk, and even that isn't as far out as it could be) is just "Fighter, but slightly different".

Add the fact that skills are wildly unreliable in 5e, being subject to GM's whims far more often than any other feature in the system, and you get Rogues being pretty low on satisfaction charts.

Personally, if I were to really do anything with D&D-likes, I'd just shove Rogue and Fighter together. Drop Sneak Attack as the "one big hit" and instead add a small, scaling "Efficient Fighting" bonus to all attacks to reward flanking and attacking weakened foes. Like, say, 1d6 per five levels. Still would give them a lot of skills, but all martials would get a lot of skills in this theoretical game, because skills are (IMO) a good place to put martials' answers to non-combat magic.