My reaction is similar to the others:
This is clearly a work of passion, and has lots of great stuff in it. There are lots of good details here, and much of it is handled well. You might have a blast playing it, if that’s what you want out of gaming!
However, it’s also an awkward hybrid between Dungeon World and a traditional game like D&D.
That might work great for you, but can feel rather unfocused or ungainly as a game at the table. Rickard’s comments are good here - there is some unnecessary crunch (like the stat scores and derived attributes) and the lack of playbooks makes it a lot harder to navigate (not necessarily a terrible thing, but a player has to read the whole thing and then make the right choices, so the question is whether that’s worth the effort and truly adds to the game or not).
It’s got a lot of 1990’s design vibes. I didn’t check out the math or see any obvious problems, so assuming it works well, it probably does what it’s setting out to do. A very traditional approach, but some people are into that.
Aside from the moves taken from Dungeon World, it doesn’t really feel like a PbtA game to me. As DeReel wrote above, there are mechanics here but no game, no procedures, no Agenda, no Principles. I have no idea what we even do in this game. (Which sounds harsh, but is not uncommon for “home drafts” of games, where the writer already has some gameplay in mind, usually/probably “just like what we did with D&D/this other game”, so you’re not alone. It just doesn’t offer much to the reader aside from some ability descriptions and resolution mechanics.)
Generally, the level of detail and simulation in the rules feels out of whack with the simpler resolution mechanics, but, hey, some people might enjoy it. It’s just unconventional, like putting pineapple on a burger or something - if it’s done well, some people might really enjoy it, even if most people think it’s just weird.
It will come down a lot to the specifics of the rules, and, more importantly, how it’s actually meant to be played. What do we do with this game, what is it for, how do we get the most out of it?
On top of that, it doesn’t even tell you how to do the PbtA parts of it. A 6- doesn’t have to be “the task fails”. A 10+ doesn’t need to be a “critical success”. That’s part of the fun of PbtA design - to mess around with this. What if a move’s outcomes are all good? Or all bad? What if the GM’s job, on a 6-, is to give you exactly what you asked for, but then cause trouble for someone else? What if a 7-9 is really good, but a 10+ is terrible? What are the players and GM trying to do as they play? What separates good play from bad play? And so on.
It’s kind of like a steering wheel and pedals without the car to go along with it, you know? What’s the actual process of play, why do we play, what do we get out of it?
Again, that’s very common when someone makes a draft of a ruleset, because they usually already have something in mind (once more, usually “just like that other game we played, but with these different die rules…”). So you definitely shouldn’t feel bad about it - you’re in good company, and I’ve written many such drafts myself. 
Perhaps the thing to do, if you still like the rules after this commentary, is to play it a bunch and start writing down what you actually do with it, what works, what doesn’t, and turn that into the next draft. Did you prepare a mystery, and have the players solve it? Did the players all create characters that are part of a team? Did they then notice personality flaws in each other, and challenge each other to be better people? Was the GM’s job to help that along, or get in their way? And so on.
I also quite like the Push rules; there are a variety of things you can do which are nicely framed, and if there are fun ways to earn that resource currency, gives players a lot of flexibility.
Good luck!
