diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md
index 7f4736b2e..a659d5d92 100644
--- a/CHANGELOG.md
+++ b/CHANGELOG.md
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
   auto-discovered with bounded scan_depth. Updated `fs-directory` child types
   and auto-discovery. Updated `git-checkout` child types. Includes YAML
   configs, Behave BDD tests, Robot tests, and ASV benchmarks. (#330)
+- Added TDD bug-capture tests for #932 (plan apply missing --yes flag). (#950)
 - Fixed `plan execute` CLI failing with "Plan is not in an executable state
   (current: strategize/queued)" after strategize completed successfully.
   Root cause: `_get_plan_executor()` created a second `PlanLifecycleService`
diff --git a/features/steps/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag_steps.py b/features/steps/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag_steps.py
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f53221c16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/features/steps/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag_steps.py
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+"""Step definitions for TDD Bug #932 — plan apply missing --yes flag.
+
+These steps verify that the ``lifecycle-apply`` CLI command accepts the
+``--yes`` / ``-y`` flag as required by the specification.  The spec
+mandates ``agents plan apply [--yes|-y] <PLAN_ID>`` to skip the
+confirmation prompt before applying plan changes, but the current
+implementation does not recognise this flag.
+
+When the flag is missing, Typer (Click) rejects the option with
+``"No such option: --yes"`` and exit code 2.  The assertion that this
+error is absent will **fail** — proving the bug.  The
+``@tdd_expected_fail`` tag on the feature inverts this failure to a
+pass while the bug remains open.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from behave import given, then, when
+from behave.runner import Context
+from typer.testing import CliRunner
+
+from cleveragents.cli.commands.plan import app as plan_app
+
+
+@given("a plan CLI runner for the yes-flag test")
+def step_plan_cli_runner(context: Context) -> None:
+    """Create a Typer CliRunner for the plan sub-app."""
+    context.apply_yes_runner = CliRunner()
+
+
+@when("I invoke lifecycle-apply with --yes flag")
+def step_invoke_lifecycle_apply_yes(context: Context) -> None:
+    """Invoke ``plan lifecycle-apply --yes <PLAN_ID>``.
+
+    We pass a dummy plan ID because we only care whether the ``--yes``
+    flag is recognised by the CLI framework, not whether the plan
+    exists.  If ``--yes`` is unknown, Typer exits with code 2 *before*
+    any business logic runs.
+    """
+    context.apply_yes_result = context.apply_yes_runner.invoke(
+        plan_app,
+        ["lifecycle-apply", "--yes", "DUMMY_PLAN_ID"],
+    )
+
+
+@when("I invoke lifecycle-apply with -y flag")
+def step_invoke_lifecycle_apply_y(context: Context) -> None:
+    """Invoke ``plan lifecycle-apply -y <PLAN_ID>``."""
+    context.apply_yes_result = context.apply_yes_runner.invoke(
+        plan_app,
+        ["lifecycle-apply", "-y", "DUMMY_PLAN_ID"],
+    )
+
+
+@then("the lifecycle-apply --yes invocation should not report an unknown option")
+def step_assert_yes_recognised(context: Context) -> None:
+    """Assert the output does NOT contain the Click/Typer unknown-option error.
+
+    When ``--yes`` is not defined on the command, Click produces::
+
+        Error: No such option: --yes
+
+    and returns exit code 2.  If the flag is properly defined, the
+    command proceeds past option parsing (and may fail later due to
+    the dummy plan ID, but that is irrelevant — we only test flag
+    recognition).
+    """
+    output = context.apply_yes_result.output
+    exit_code = context.apply_yes_result.exit_code
+    # Check both the text message and the Click/Typer usage-error exit code.
+    # Exit code 2 specifically means "unrecognised option" in Click.
+    assert exit_code != 2 and "No such option" not in output, (
+        f"The --yes flag was not recognised by lifecycle-apply.\n"
+        f"Exit code: {exit_code}\n"
+        f"Output:\n{output}"
+    )
+
+
+@then("the lifecycle-apply -y invocation should not report an unknown option")
+def step_assert_y_recognised(context: Context) -> None:
+    """Assert the output does NOT contain the Click/Typer unknown-option error.
+
+    Same check as the ``--yes`` variant but for the ``-y`` short flag.
+    """
+    output = context.apply_yes_result.output
+    exit_code = context.apply_yes_result.exit_code
+    assert exit_code != 2 and "No such option" not in output, (
+        f"The -y flag was not recognised by lifecycle-apply.\n"
+        f"Exit code: {exit_code}\n"
+        f"Output:\n{output}"
+    )
diff --git a/features/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.feature b/features/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.feature
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..66476e82f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/features/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.feature
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+@tdd_expected_fail @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_932
+Feature: TDD Bug #932 — plan apply missing --yes flag
+  As a developer
+  I want to verify that `agents plan lifecycle-apply` accepts the --yes
+  flag required by the specification
+  So that the bug is captured and will be caught by a regression test
+
+  The specification mandates `agents plan apply [--yes|-y] <PLAN_ID>`
+  but the current `lifecycle-apply` implementation does not accept
+  `--yes` or `-y`.  Other destructive CLI commands (`session delete`,
+  `project delete`, `plan correct`, `plan rollback`) correctly implement
+  the `--yes`/`-y` pattern to skip confirmation prompts.
+
+  Scenario: lifecycle-apply recognises the --yes long flag
+    Given a plan CLI runner for the yes-flag test
+    When I invoke lifecycle-apply with --yes flag
+    Then the lifecycle-apply --yes invocation should not report an unknown option
+
+  Scenario: lifecycle-apply recognises the -y short flag
+    Given a plan CLI runner for the yes-flag test
+    When I invoke lifecycle-apply with -y flag
+    Then the lifecycle-apply -y invocation should not report an unknown option
diff --git a/noxfile.py b/noxfile.py
index 982e7b0e5..bc9365c4f 100644
--- a/noxfile.py
+++ b/noxfile.py
@@ -1060,7 +1060,7 @@ def benchmark_regression(session: nox.Session):
     """Run Airspeed Velocity benchmarks regression test."""
     session.install("-e", ".[tests]")
     config_path = "asv.conf.json"
-    asv_base_sha = os.environ.get("ASV_BASE_SHA")
+    asv_base_sha = os.environ.get("ASV_BASE_SHA", "master")
     session.run(
         "asv",
         "machine",
diff --git a/robot/helper_tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.py b/robot/helper_tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.py
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..61d1e7767
--- /dev/null
+++ b/robot/helper_tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.py
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+"""Helper script for tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.robot smoke tests.
+
+Each subcommand exercises the real CLI path (no mocks) to reproduce bug #932.
+The ``lifecycle-apply`` command is invoked with ``--yes`` or ``-y`` to verify
+that the flag is recognised by the CLI framework.
+
+The helper reports the **real** outcome: it exits 0 and prints the sentinel
+when the flag is accepted (bug is fixed), and exits 1 when the flag is
+rejected (bug still present).  The ``tdd_expected_fail_listener`` on the
+Robot side handles pass/fail inversion while the bug remains open.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import sys
+from collections.abc import Callable
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import NoReturn
+
+# Ensure local source tree is importable.
+_ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+_SRC = str(_ROOT / "src")
+if _SRC not in sys.path:
+    sys.path.insert(0, _SRC)
+
+from typer.testing import CliRunner  # noqa: E402
+
+from cleveragents.cli.commands.plan import app as plan_app  # noqa: E402
+
+runner = CliRunner()
+
+
+def _fail(message: str) -> NoReturn:
+    """Print an error message to stderr and exit with code 1."""
+    print(message, file=sys.stderr)
+    sys.exit(1)
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Subcommands
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def check_yes_long() -> None:
+    """Invoke ``lifecycle-apply --yes DUMMY`` and verify the flag is accepted.
+
+    Exits 0 with sentinel when ``--yes`` is recognised (bug fixed).
+    Exits 1 when Typer rejects the flag (bug still present).
+    """
+    result = runner.invoke(plan_app, ["lifecycle-apply", "--yes", "DUMMY_PLAN_ID"])
+    if "No such option" in result.output or result.exit_code == 2:
+        _fail(
+            f"lifecycle-apply rejected --yes flag.\n"
+            f"Exit code: {result.exit_code}\n"
+            f"Output: {result.output}"
+        )
+    print("tdd-plan-apply-yes-flag-long-ok")
+
+
+def check_yes_short() -> None:
+    """Invoke ``lifecycle-apply -y DUMMY`` and verify the flag is accepted.
+
+    Exits 0 with sentinel when ``-y`` is recognised (bug fixed).
+    Exits 1 when Typer rejects the flag (bug still present).
+    """
+    result = runner.invoke(plan_app, ["lifecycle-apply", "-y", "DUMMY_PLAN_ID"])
+    if "No such option" in result.output or result.exit_code == 2:
+        _fail(
+            f"lifecycle-apply rejected -y flag.\n"
+            f"Exit code: {result.exit_code}\n"
+            f"Output: {result.output}"
+        )
+    print("tdd-plan-apply-yes-flag-short-ok")
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Dispatcher
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+_COMMANDS: dict[str, Callable[[], None]] = {
+    "check-yes-long": check_yes_long,
+    "check-yes-short": check_yes_short,
+}
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    if len(sys.argv) < 2 or sys.argv[1] not in _COMMANDS:
+        print(
+            f"Usage: {sys.argv[0]} <{'|'.join(_COMMANDS)}>",
+            file=sys.stderr,
+        )
+        sys.exit(1)
+    cmd = _COMMANDS[sys.argv[1]]
+    cmd()
diff --git a/robot/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.robot b/robot/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.robot
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..5a9ea83aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/robot/tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.robot
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+*** Settings ***
+Documentation    TDD Bug #932 — plan lifecycle-apply missing --yes flag
+...              Integration smoke tests verifying that the lifecycle-apply
+...              command accepts the --yes / -y flag required by the
+...              specification.  The spec mandates
+...              ``agents plan apply [--yes|-y] <PLAN_ID>`` to skip the
+...              confirmation prompt, but the current implementation does not
+...              recognise this flag.
+Resource         ${CURDIR}/common.resource
+Suite Setup      Setup Test Environment
+Suite Teardown   Cleanup Test Environment
+
+*** Variables ***
+${HELPER}    ${CURDIR}/helper_tdd_plan_apply_yes_flag.py
+
+*** Test Cases ***
+TDD Plan Apply Yes Long Flag Via CLI
+    [Documentation]    Verify that ``lifecycle-apply --yes`` is recognised
+    [Tags]    tdd_expected_fail    tdd_bug    tdd_bug_932
+    ${result}=    Run Process    ${PYTHON}    ${HELPER}    check-yes-long    cwd=${WORKSPACE}    timeout=30s    on_timeout=kill
+    Log    ${result.stdout}
+    Log    ${result.stderr}
+    Should Be Equal As Integers    ${result.rc}    0
+    Should Contain    ${result.stdout}    tdd-plan-apply-yes-flag-long-ok
+
+TDD Plan Apply Yes Short Flag Via CLI
+    [Documentation]    Verify that ``lifecycle-apply -y`` is recognised
+    [Tags]    tdd_expected_fail    tdd_bug    tdd_bug_932
+    ${result}=    Run Process    ${PYTHON}    ${HELPER}    check-yes-short    cwd=${WORKSPACE}    timeout=30s    on_timeout=kill
+    Log    ${result.stdout}
+    Log    ${result.stderr}
+    Should Be Equal As Integers    ${result.rc}    0
+    Should Contain    ${result.stdout}    tdd-plan-apply-yes-flag-short-ok