diff --git a/docs/adrs/0003-consistency-in-ci-workflow-job-naming.md b/docs/adrs/0003-consistency-in-ci-workflow-job-naming.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6b6c58ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/adrs/0003-consistency-in-ci-workflow-job-naming.md
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# 2. Apache License, Version 2.0 (Apache-2.0) for All UDS Products
+
+Date: 2024-10-04
+
+## Status
+
+Accepted
+
+## Context
+
+GitHub CI workflows and job names have somewhat complex interactions between 
+understandability on a Pull Request and with Branch Protection Rules for a
+repository.
+
+Because of the downstream impacts these names can have to UDS Package repos
+we need a simple scheme to follow for common workflows and jobs that will
+minimize the need to change repo settings for consuming repos.
+
+Parent workflow names (the `name` key at the top of a GitHub workflow) do not
+affect Branch Protection Rules, whereas job names and matrices are included
+in these rules.
+
+## Decision
+
+Workflow names should be simple but can be whatever the downstream team would
+like them to be to carry context for that action - these names are localized to 
+their respective repositories so do not impact other teams.
+
+Job names though should be controlled to maintain consistency for branch protection.
+For calling (parent) workflows and callable (common) workflows these should be named:
+
+- Callable Workflow jobs (in `uds-common`) should be named `run`
+- Calling Workflow jobs (in `uds-package-*`) should be named `validate`
+
+This will ensure that there is a minimum of permutations that need to be included for
+a given repository and that more scans/tests/checks can be added over time.  For a
+given repo the Branch Protection Rules could look something like:
+
+- validate / run
+- validate (install, upstream) / run
+- validate (upgrade, upstream) / run
+- validate (install, unicorn) / run
+- validate (upgrade, unicorn) / run
+- validate (install, registry1) / run
+- validate (upgrade, registry1) / run
+
+With the Pull Request jobs looking something like:
+
+- Lint / validate / run
+- PR Title Check / validate / run
+- Test / validate (install, upstream) / run
+- Test / validate (upgrade, upstream) / run
+- Test / validate (install, unicorn) / run
+- Test / validate (upgrade, unicorn) / run
+- Test / validate (install, registry1) / run
+- Test / validate (upgrade, registry1) / run
+- CI Docs Shim / validate (install, upstream) / run
+- CI Docs Shim / validate (upgrade, upstream) / run
+- CI Docs Shim / validate (install, unicorn) / run
+- CI Docs Shim / validate (upgrade, unicorn) / run
+- CI Docs Shim / validate (install, registry1) / run
+- CI Docs Shim / validate (upgrade, registry1) / run
+
+## Consequences
+
+Sticking to `validate / run` could make things more ambiguous - especially if calling
+workflow names do not properly carry context and this naming scheme does not take into
+account any potential matrix changes which are also included in Branch Protection Rules.
+
+Likely though this should still provide flexibility for teams to add context if they need
+to and matrix changes are less likely and have only been observed a few times in the past.
+Any additional jobs should be able to follow either the standard `validate / run` flow or
+the existing matrix flow for the repository.