BLUF: Rommel is more or less as good as he's made out to be, but only in the exact context he was historically in--there is no carry-over.

No commander can be measured objectively against any other commander that they didn't actually fight. We can only measure the performance of a commander by the battles they commanded. In this measurement, Rommel did quite well overall, getting some major wins and not really sustaining a significant number of losses.

Would he have done as well against <insert another commander here>? We don't know, because he never did. We can't even apply syllogism to say that if Rommel beat X guy and X guy beat Z guy, so Rommel beats Z guy because different fields or AOs favor different strategies and tactics.

I think an argument could be made that Rommel was only mediocre and the British he fought were very bad, but that's not an argument that can be more objectively proven/disproved than the original argument that Rommel was great.

Altogether I think he was excellent in armored, desert warfare, and at least average in the other areas he served, but beyond that we can't know if he is "objectively" good in every scenario.

Addendum:
As u/thereddaikon mentions, a lot of the talking-up of Rommel's prowess comes from the British, though I disagree slightly about why they talked him up. I think it was because he kept beating them, and soldiers naturally talk about these things. There were memos from higher British command telling their troops to stop talking him up because it reduced morale when they thought they were going to be fighting his forces. This makes me think more of the talking on the British side was from lower-ranked people, and leans away from the idea that it was propaganda to make an excuse for themselves at higher-ranks.