The way that form of “skilled play” gets held up as an ideal is one of the things I really dislike about OSR-style play. I don’t think that the game should be about cleverly avoiding rolling skills or scores just because they’re terrible. It’s an overreaction to a particular style of adjudicating skills that people associate with 3e+ D&D, and thus must be “bad”. I’m more of the fan of the Alexandrian’s approach: player skill unlocks character skill. You have to search the right place to get to make a skill check, but you don’t have to be exceptionally precise about it. If you are, then I see no reason not to give the player the thing they found, but if not, they still get to make a roll.
Honestly, the examples I've seen seem to often resent there being anything but coarse physical skills at all. The fact that OD&D and early AD&D effectively let you pull off anything you could sell your GM on doesn't seem a great virtue to me, though I think your other post addresses a failure of the application of skill systems that may have reinforced the attitude (i.e. some applications of a lot of skills should be such that they're pretty easy for anyone to do. If you still resent having to roll for it, well, that's part of the gig of a big linear die roll system.)