It defaults to not running the rest if a step fails, and the error result is accessible via usual mechanisms. _, err := script.Foo(...).Bar(...).Stdout();

It defaults to not running the rest if a step fails, and the error result is accessible via usual mechanisms. _, err := script.Foo(...).Bar(...).Stdout(); if err != nil { log.Fatal(err) } is sufficient for a quick scripting hack designed to be run interactively. I don't see it as a lot different to bash scripts with -e and pipefail set, which is generally preferable anyway. Plenty of go code does if err != nil { return nil, err; } for each step and there are plenty of cases where you only care -if- it failed plus a description of some sort of the failure - if you want to proceed on some errors you'd split the pipe up so that it pauses at moments where you can check that and compensate accordingly. (and under -e plus pipefail, "error reported to stdout followed by aborting" is pretty much what you get in bash as well, so I'm unconvinced it's actually going to be harder to debug)