I think this use case of automation in a BPA sense is more compelling than using it for test automation, because the latter is much more concerned with the precision and repeatability of the process. For the BPA task, arguably you care only about the outcome and it often doesn't matter if it gets there via some crazy route.
Part of the problem for me is that your example video shows a big wodge of prompt that had to be written to make this work and then a few kb of payload data (parameters) in a plaintext, non-csv format. If the expectation is that this replaces someone just using Playwright with codegen due to that being too technical, I'm not convinced there is a huge group of people who can manage one task but not the other.
Furthermore, you are expecting them to pass over their website login credentials and apparently their credit card details too, in plain text. You had better have a very solid idea of how to handle that sensitive data to avoid serious consequences if your users' skyvern accounts are compromised.
I think the frequency of website redesigns is oversold by people producing these LLM-driven Playwright wrappers, especially when targeting old-fashioned or government sites. As an example, we have had a suite of lengthy Playwright browser automations to interact with a government site for a few years and have had to maintain them only once, when the agency's business process changed. The prompt would also have needed to change had we used Skyvern, as would the payload, because the process was different. The difference with the Playwright automation, though, is that we could use assertions to verify steps had succeeded/failed and data had been recorded correctly, so we would know the process needed updating. I can't see that option in Skyvern which would have me worrying that process changes would be overlooked and we would unknowingly start entering the wrong data or missing steps.