I would generally shy away from dividing the game into discreet areas such as combat/utility/social. If you do that too much, you end up playing three different games with very little interaction between them. For example, you might end up playing a character who fights in-combat with swords, but then once they're out of combat their only notable skill is casting illusions and teleporting around.

Not that I have anything wrong with a warrior-mage/gish character, but if you're able to use magic, it makes sense that you should be able to use it in combat applications, while if you're a strong fighter, you should be good at climbing and other physical tasks. If you're a sneaky rogue in combat, but don't take the scout theme, does that mean you're suddenly no good at sneaking around if you're not in combat? What defines in and out of combat at that point?

I don't think that there's an inherent issue with feats or other character options offering both combat and out of combat options. In 3.5, the in-combat options were definitely the right choice, but I think this is simply because the non-combat options that were presented were so weak and worthless.

There's also a lot of room for stuff that toes the line between combat and non-combat. Blacksmithing, for example, and other item-creation feats, are all about stuff you do out of combat, but it can have very big effects on what happens in combat, too. For example, the Master Blacksmith feat I suggested, would allow you to save a lot of gold with normal items, or spend a lot of gold to get superior weapons and armor. These are things you do outside of combat, but they have effects in combat. Another example:

Baleful Gaze
Requirements: 15 charisma
You gain advantage when attempting to intimidate people or monsters. If you successfully intimidate an enemy in combat, that creature become shaken until the end of it's next turn.

This has plenty of out of combat use (intimidating people for fun and profit!), but it also has a distinct in-combat use, making Intimidation a very real and very useful action for you to use in combat. If you separate feats to combat feats and utility feats, which would this be? Where do you draw the line? The player who wants to be a combat powerhouse will simply pick the utility feats that grant them the most options in-combat, while the player who wants to focus on non-combat abilities would arbitrarily be forced to choose some combat feats, rather than being able to choose tons of utility feats that might also have some effect on what they can do in combat.