“Doesn’t like” as in “locks you out of romance,” or as in “acts as a source of conflict/makes things harder”? I’d strongly prefer the latter. I think that type of reactivity could be interesting, and, if done well, add a lot to characterization. (Of course, then you’d want to consider balance in the other direction – if I only have preferred stats, is the relationship more shallow/am I missing a bunch of content?)
Can you give an example of a skill that would bar you from a romance? I get characters being put off by personality traits/ethics, but I’m not sure I understand skills in themselves. Like, “an archer killed my family so I refuse to date you for your 5% in archery” seems…off. On the other hand, “you chose this course of action, which worked because of your skills, but it is a choice antithetical to my whole being so of course I’m not going to date you now” makes a lot of sense.
I don’t know what type of game you’re working on, but one thing that can annoy me is if a game is highly stats-dependent, but relationship building and stats are highly connected (e.g. you spend time training a specific stat with a specific person, and that’s the only way to build both that stat and that relationship). I get that it makes some narrative sense, but it feels restrictive. In games that are less stat-dependent (so I can spend time training a skill I don’t actually care about, and it won’t doom me to failure), this is less of an issue.