Not sure what they are trying to say exactly. What should we be skeptical of? Did the incident not happen? Was it reported incorrectly? Are any of the parties involved lying?

Adding no extra information and just going “be skeptical” is the laziest form of reporting and commentary. If you have nothing to contribute then there’s no need to say anything at all.

The author is trying to provide a counterweight to the volume of articles that simply repeat OpenAI's account of the events and their interpretation without much pushback.

They are not suggesting that OpenAI or HF have lied about what happened, but rather that OpenAI is advancing a narrative framing their models as supremely dangerous and capable, while positioning themselves as the only ones qualified to manage that danger.

At the same time they are not being particularly transparent about what actually happened (e.g. was this one-shotted or if not how many trials did they run and what were the outcomes of those, was it emergent as a part of routine cyber-capabilities tests, how much prompting was involved, what prompts were used)

Note that this is at a time when they are lobbying for a regulatory approach that would give frontier labs special treatment.

I would guess the editorial team at The Guardian may not like articles that get too in the weeds of technical details and questions like these that the vast majority of their readers wouldn't understand. I don't know. But I empathize with your disappointment. I don't think it's fair to say that they are contributing "nothing" especially given what most reporting on this has looked like.